Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/29/2025.10 7.. 2024 VAB Recap: ......:.:.:::........:.:::....... ...... ....................................... W Florida Department of Revenue ]im Zingale Office of General Counsel Executive Director FLORIDA 5050 West Tennessee Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399 floridarevenue.com Please Respond to: Office of the General Counsel Property Tax Oversight Legal Section Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668 ste ve. k e l l e r(cD fl b ri d a reve n u e. co m May 14, 2024 E-MAIL DELIVERY From: Stephen J. Keller Chief Legal Counsel for Property Tax Litigation and VAB Oversight, Florida Department of Revenue (DOR) To: Jon Moyle, Legal Counsel, Leon County Value Adjustment Board (VAB) Mackenzie Baughn, Sr. Paralegal, Leon County Attorney's Office Subject: Election of Chairperson for VAB by County Governing Body Thank you for your emails on behalf of the Leon County Attorney's Office and several VABs in which you inquire about the election process for the value adjustment board chairperson. Your question to the Department is as follows: • "Specifically, the pending question is who elects the chair of the VAB? The two possible choices are the county commission when "electing" two members of their commission to serve on the VAB or the VAB when convening and organizing at its annual organizational meeting." According to s. 194.015, F.S., the VAB is composed of two members of the county's governing body, one of whom is elected as the chairperson. Section 194.015, F.S. creates the value adjustment boards: "Value adjustment board.—There is hereby created a value adjustment board for each county, which shall consist of two members of the governing body of the county as elected from the membership of the board of said governing body, one of whom shall be elected chairperson, and one member of the school board as elected from the membership of the school board, and two citizen members, one of whom shall be appointed by the governing body of the county and must own homestead property within the county and one of whom must be appointed by the school board and must own a.business occupying commercial space located within the school district. [... ]" You state it is unclear whether the VAB elects the chairperson at the first meeting or if the governing body does this beforehand. You indicate that the legislative history for s. 194.015, F.S. does not contain anything relevant. 1IFE Leon County Value Adjustment Board May 14, 2024 The function of the statute is to create the value adjustment board, set forth that all members, including the chair, are elected and appointed by the county governing body and the school board. For consistency, we read the word "elected" as action by the county governing body or school board. The statute states the county governing body shall elect two members to the VAB, then the statute says one of whom shall be elected chair. The statute proceeds to describe the school board member as "elected" by the school board. Nowhere in this statutory process does it suggest that the VAB elects a chair. The Department's rule, 12D-9.004, F.A.C., tracks the statute and provides: "12D-9.004 Composition of the Value Adjustment Board. "(1) Every county shall have a value adjustment board which consists of: "(a) Two members of the governing body of the county, elected by the governing body from among its members, one of whom shall be elected as the chair of the value adjustment board; ...." (Emphasis supplied). The election of the VAB chair by the county governing body also relieves the VAB of the task of beginning a meeting without an elected chair and then completing the election during the initial meeting, which would typically be the organizational meeting of the VAB. SJK/sk -2- Ofce of f `_ INDIAN Jennifer W. Shuler, County Attorney Susan J. Prado, Deputy County Attorney Christopher A. Hicks, Assistant County Attorney MEMORANDUM Attorney's Matters 1/28/2025 RIVER COUNTY TO: Board of County Commissioners Through: John A. Titkanich, Jr., ICMA-CM, AICP County Administrator FROM: Jennifer W. Shuler, County Attorney DATE: January 3, 2025 SUBJECT: VAB Chair/Vice Chair election Background: ATTORNEY Florida Statute 194.015 requires the Board of County Commissioners to appoint two Commissioners to serve on the Value Adjustment Board (VAB). Specifically, the statute states," There is hereby created a value adjustment board for each county, which shall consist of two members of the governing body of the county as elected from the membership of the board of said governing body, one of whom shall be elected as chairperson..." This year, the Commissioners assigned to the VAB are Chairman Flescher and Commissioner Earman. Traditionally, at the annual organizational meeting of the VAB in August, the members elect a Chair and Vice Chair. However, in 2024 the Florida Department of Revenue, Office of the General Counsel, issued an opinion interpreting Fla. Stat. 194.015 to require the Board of County Commissioners to elect a Chair of the VAB instead of the VAB membership. This would allow the VAB to have a Chair already in place to run the organizational meeting. The Clerk of Court has requested that this Board elect a Chair and Vice Chair of the VAB to have them in place for the VAB 2025 meetings. I have reached out to the VAB attorney, who agrees with this recommendation. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Board elect a Chair and Vice Chair of the Value Adjustment Board. -3- Value Adjustment Board Special Magistrate Recommendations Board Review Date 4/11/2025 Tax Roll Count: 27 27 Totals: $80,830,170 $78,986,122 $4,844,048 4/7/2025 11:53:14AN Page 1 of 1 Taxable Value Before SM Recommended Recommended Petition # Parcel # OwnerName Adjustment Taxable Value Reduction Decision 2024-008 33392600002000600001.0 VISCONTE DAVID M $192,486 $192,486 $0 DENIED 2024-018 33391000006001000011.0 TURRIAGO MARIO TERESA $142,474 $142,474 $0 DENIED 2024-019 33391000006001000010.0 TURRIAGO MARIO TERESA $145,314 $145,314 $0 DENIED 2024-021 32393600011015000002.0 HARRIS GAYLE W $100,235 $100,235 $0 DENIED 2024-063 33383500001014000001.0 BEST CHOICE PROPERTIES 2 LLC $443,418 $320,100 $-123,318 GRANTED 2024-066 32403200046000000312.0 RETRUST LLC $487,050 $487,050 $0 DENIED 2024-067 33390400001014000002.1 HILL ALEXANDRA $635,633 $590,600 $45,033 GRANTED 2024-080 33390400038000000001.0 VERO BEACH HOTEL GROUP LLC $5,067,179 $5,067,179 $0 DENIED 2024-082 33390600001014000005.0 NHI-REIT OF DSL PROPCO LLC $11,069,577 $11,069,577 $0 DENIED 2024-083 33392100024000000015.0 BOGDANOWICH DEAN $729,813 $729,813 $0 DENIED 2024-093 31392300011000000021.0 CALKINS JAMES H $11,076,326 $11,000,000 $-76,326 GRANTER, 2024-097 323931000010140000011.0 BENCHMARK HUNTINGTONAT SUNDAN $12,296,066 $12,296,066 $0 DENIED 2024-098 33391300000100000015.0 VERO BEACH SELF STORAGE LLC $3,427,739 $3,427,739 $0 DENIED 2024-100 33391200000500000069.2 PRIME STORAGE 9TH PLACE VERO BEA( $2,238,779 $2,238,779 $0 DENIED 2024-101 33391200000500000008.1 PRIME STORAGE DIXIE VERO BEACH LL $1,878,737 $1,878,737 $0 DENIED 2024-107 32392300000300000008.0 ANSIN GROUP LTD $1,091,062 $1,091,062 $0 DENIED 2024-108 32392300000300000009.0 ANSIN GROUP LTD $34,212 $34,212 $0 DENIED 2024-113 33380100001007000001.1 WP VEROBCH MF -FL OWNER LLC $4,182,279 $4,182,279 $0 DENIED 2024-115 31391500022063000003.0 ALLARD WILLIAM J ELIZABETH B $7,087,715 $6,200,000 $-887,715 GRANTED 2024-119 32403200006020000009.1 VEROLAND LLC $7,261,250 $7,261,250 $0 DENIED 2024-132 33391000009001000003.0 MILICEVIC MICHAEL (CO -TRS) $322,671 $290,000 $-32,671 GRANTED INPART 2024-140 31392100010000000006.0 BORAS ROBERT M $206,047 $206,047 $0 GRANTED INPART 2024-149 31392300026010000202.0 MCGONIGLE KEVIN $2,447,466 $2,422,500 $-24,966 GRANTED INPART 2024-155 303 825000190000000 10.0 BEASLEYTAREEK S $1,016,964 $949,503 $-67,461 GRANTED 2024-157 32403100007023000018.0 DOWNEY LINDA BAILEY $2,480,798 $2,480,798 $0 DENIED 2024-162 32401800006000000001.0 SUNRISE 1000 LLC $4,137,551 $3,550,993 $-586,558 GRANTED IN PART 2024-167 32401800055000000003.0 EMIL T KESLER $631,329 $631,329 $0 DENIED Count: 27 27 Totals: $80,830,170 $78,986,122 $4,844,048 4/7/2025 11:53:14AN Page 1 of 1 t. 0 FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD EXEMPTION, CLASSIFICATION, ASSESSMENT DIFFERENCE TRANSFER, CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL, OR QUALIFYING IMPROVEMENT PETITION DR-485XC R. 11/23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 The actions below were taken on your petition in Indian River County. ❑✓ These actions area recommendation only, not final. ❑ These actions area final decision of the VAB. If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decisiori.of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest vour assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1),194.036,194.171(2),194.181,196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes. Petition # 2024-008 1 Parcel ID 33392600002000600001.0 Petitioner name VISCONTE DAVID M Property 1875 10TH ST SW The petitioner is: Ztaxpayer of record C]representative address VERO BEACH, FL 32962 ❑ other, explain: entity, PetOtherExplain Decision Summary © Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value from Value before Board Action Value after Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Board Action Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. 1. Just value, required 192,486.00 192,486.00 192,486.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 192,486.00 192,486.00 192,486.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 192,486.00 192,486.00 192,486.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reason for Petition ✓❑ Homestead ❑ Widow/er ❑ Blind ❑ Totally and permanently disabled veteran ❑ Low-income senior ❑ Disabled ❑ Disabled veteran ❑Use classification, specify 0 Parent/grandparent assessment reduction ❑ Deployed military ❑Use exemption, specify ❑Transfer of homestead assessment difference ❑Qualifying improvement ❑Change of ownership or control ❑Other,specify Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand, or add pages as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) ❑✓ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate The finding and conclusions above are recouc�'ettee �'eflm n tine�I, er Claudette Pelletier 03/25/2025 Cla Signature, special magistrate : Print name Date Terri Collins -Lister Terri Collins -Lister 03/25/2025 Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at 0 AM ❑ PM. Address If the line above is blank, please call 772-226-1432 or visit our website at //vab.indian-river.org/Axia2024/ ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 2024-008 - 1 - Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact: The Petitioner, David Visconte, appeared, was sworn and testified. Margo Maxwell appeared on behalf of the Property Appraiser, was sworn and testified. This is a petition for appeal frgm a homestead exemption application denial per Florida Statutes 196.015(4)(6)(7) and 196.012(17) as the petitioner did not establish Florida residency as of January 1, 2024. The Florida Driver license presented was obtained 3/19/24 and his voter registration in Florida was obtained 3/19/24. Mr.Visconte did not submit a vehicle registration. Mr. Visconte testified that he believes the homestead exemption should be automatic and should not have to be applied for. He did not provide any further evidence to establish permanent Florida residency as of January 1, 2024. Conclusions of Law: The only evidence establishing permanent Florida residence was the Florida driver license issued in March of 2024 and the voter registration also issued in March of 2024. As Flprida Statutes requires intent of permanent Florida residencey as of January 1, 2024, the petition must be denied;for 2024. 2024-008 -2- Page 2 of 2 The=actions=below were taken on your petition: ❑✓ These actions:are a recommendation only,: not final ❑These_ actions are :a finaGdecision of the VAB If.you:are not satisfied after you are notified. ofthe .final. decision of the VAB, you -have the right,to file a -lawsuit....: in circuit court to further contest:your assessment. (Seeaections 1.93.155 4. and ... 1:97.2425, Florida Statutes.) :Petition -* 2024 -0J1'8 ­ Parcel: ID:33391000006001000011.0 Petitioner name TURRIAGO MARIO AND TERESA Property 420815TH PL. The petitioner is: taxpayer of -record ❑ taxpayer<saddress CH, FL 32960 representative VE RO $EA ❑ other, explain:" Decision Summary= ❑✓ Denied your petition ❑=Granted your petition-:.:E]Granted your:petitlon In part .. ;Value. Value from After Board Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Lines 1. and 4 mustbe completed .... TRIM Notice Action Rule: 12D-9.02510 F.A.C..::. 1.. Just value, required" 142,474.00 142,474.00' 142,474.00 2. Assessed or classified use. value,*.d.applicable 1421474.00 142,474.00 142,474:00 3 Exempt value,* enter'. b,, if none: :0.00:1 0.00. 0.00::. 4. Taxable_.V81ue,* required 142,474.00 142,474,00 142,474.00 *AII values entered should be county. taxable values. School: and other taxing authority values may differ.(Section 196.031(7), Fs - Reasons for Decision :: Fill-in fields will expand, or: add pages as.needed. Findings of: Fact The petitioner did not attend this -hearing; did:not request to have this hearing:in their_absence, nor:did they present an evidence. ... . . -Conclusions of Law (See. Attached) [El: Special Magistrate :finding and donclusioris above &6 recommendations::::` --- Scott Sehr Scott Sehr 12/05/2024 Signature, special magistrate Print:name ::Date Terri Collins -Lister Terri :Collins -Lister. = 03/05/2025 Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date .. If this is: a:recomm ended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address .... If the line above is blank,: the board: does not yet know the date, time, and place when the: recommended. decision will be considered ;To find -the information, please call 772-226-1432 or visit our website=at Hvab.indian-river.org/AxiaM q. ❑.Fi_naf Decision of the Value.Ad tistment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print narne Date of decision Signature, VAB: clerk or representative::::: Print name:: :: Date mailed to:parties.:::: 2024-018 Page !:of 2 The -actions below were taken on your petition. - ❑✓ These actions;are a recommendation: only, not final E These actions are a final:decision of the VAB If.you:are not satisfied -after you are notified. ofthe .final. decision of the. AB; you.have the right to file a.lawsuit. . in.circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See: sections 193.155()(1):1194.036,194..171(2),.194_.181,196:151, and 1:97.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition:# :2024-019 :: Parcel; ID: 33391000006001000010.0 Petitioner name TURRIAGO MARIO: TERESA`:Property The petitioner is RI taxpayer of -record E]taxpayer's address 421 15TH PL t .. E 60 6. representative V RO BEACH, FL 329 ❑ other, explain: Decision Sumary. 2✓ Denied your petition m ❑:Granted your petition : ❑ Granted your:petition in part Value Lines A and 4 must be completed _ ..: . _ ... .:.: Value from TRIM Notice . ° ...: .:. Before:Board Action value presented 6y properly appraiser Rule: .12D-9.02510 F.A.C..: After Board:: Action .. ... . 1. Just value, required 162,603.00 162,603.00 " 162;603.0.0 2. Assessed or classified use -value;* rf applicable: 145;314.00 145,31:4.00 145,31.4:00 & Exempt value,* enter:' .0" if none.: .0.0.0: 0.00 :. 0.00: 4. Taxable value,* required 145,314.00. _ . 145,314.0.0 145,314.00 :*All values entered should be county: taxable.values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) ::: Reasons for Decision. .. .`: Fill-in fields Will expand, or'add pages as -heeded. Findings of: Fact The petitioner did not attend this hearing; did: not request to have this hearing:in their absence,nor_did they present any.-. evidence. :Conclusions of Law:: (See. Attached) ..:' O; Recommended: Decision Of Special Magistrate :Finding and conclusions.above are recommendations: : Scott Sehr Scott Sehr .12/05/2024... . Signature, special magistratePrint:name Date Terri:Collins-Lister Terri Collins -Lister 03/05/2025 Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name ` ' Date : :If this is:a recommended decision, the board: will consider the recommended: decision on at Address .... If theJ.ne above is blank,Jhe board::does not yet know the date, time, and place when the: recommended: decision: will be considered: To find the information, please call 772-226-1432 or visit our websiteiat //vab.indian-river.org/Axia20� ❑ Final Decision` of the Value.Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value: adjustment board Print name Date of decision..' Signature, VAB: clerk or representative::: ::Print name::: Date mailed to:parties:: 2024-019.:.. ' - of 2 Page i ..... ....: DECISION OF THE -VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD D R48i 23 > : EXEMPTION; CLASSIFICATION: ASSESSMENT DIFFERENCE ' D 6.002 Rule - TRANSFER,.CHANGE.OF OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL, F.A.C.: .:: OR QUALIFYI NG:IMPROVEMENT PETITION::: Eft. 11723 FLORIDA The actions below were -taken on your petition in Indian River County. 0 These: actions=are a recommendation only,- not_ final. - :El: These- actions are: a final decision of the VAB, .; If you are. not.satisfied after you are notified of. the final decision -of -the VAB,. you have the. right to file a lawsuit incircuit court.to further contest your assessment.: See sections: 193.155(8)(1),194.036,194.171(2),194.181,.196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes) .. Petition .# 2024-021 :Parcel ID 32393600011015000002.0 '.Pro ert� Petitioner name. HARRIS GAYLE W P: Y2 2800 INDIAN.RIVER BLVD O. The petitioner is: ❑.taxpayer of:record El representative. address VERO BEACH, FL 32960 other, explain: entity PetOtherEzelain -Decision Summary 9 Denied. your petition El Granted your:petition .: El Granted'your, in parE Value Value from Value -before Board Action: Value after Lines 1 and 4 mustbe completed TRIM Notica. e :. value presented byproperty appraiser: Board Action Rule 12D-9:02510 , F.A.C. "1. Just value, required � 155;235.00 155,235.00 _ a = 155,235.00 _2_,A $essed �6rclassified_ use value;* if 155,235.00 :: 155,235.'0: 155:235.00:- applicable - :3. Exempt: value,*- eriter "0"- if none 55,000.00 55,000.00 55,000:00 4. Taxable value,* required .. :100,235:00 100,235:00: 100;235.00 *All:values entered should be: county taxable values. School and other taxing authority. values may differ.. (Section 196.031_(7); F.S.) Reason for:Petition ❑Homestead = ❑Widow/er ❑ Blind Q Totally and permanently disabled veteran , . Disabled' veteran ❑Use classification; specify M. Low-income senior:: 0 d ❑ ElParent/grandparent assessment reduction ❑ Deployed military[]Use exemption, specify . ❑Transfer: of homestead assessment difference ❑Qualifying improvement: ❑Change of ownership or control_ . _ .. ❑Other,speelfy Reasons for Decision Fill -infields wll:expand, or add pages as needed.-: .-Findings of Fact (See Attached)..; :.Conclusions of Law (See Attached). ` 0 Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate The finding and conclusions above are recorpm n tion$ C 01/.24/2025:.: a � p II i laudet#e Pelletier.: . Clau e e e e ler . Signature, special Magistrate Print name at"e " Terri Collins -Lister _Terri Collins=Lister 01/31)2025 Signature, VAB-clerk or special: representative Print name . Date ..... ■ AM PM.::::: :..: If this is a recommended. decision, the:bosrd will consider the recommended decision on at ❑ Address : . :.:If the line.above is blank :please call 772-226=1.432 :: or visit: our website at//vab:indian-river:orq/Axia2024/ ❑:Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board = .: .. Da teof decision nameSignature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date mailed to parties Signature, VAB clerk or representative - 2024-021 Page !:of 2 T_ Findings of Fact: The Petitioner, Gayle Harris, appeared; was sworn:and testified. Janine Hicks: from the Property Appraiser's: Office appeared, was sworn-and:iestified. The property appraiser testified that Ms;:Harris applied for aMomestead Exemption on .December 20, 2023 and the Homestead and Widow Exemptions were granted for tax:year 2024. The PAO. sent a notice of disapproval dated June 26, 2024 for The Disabled Veteran Exemption because Mr. Harris'had passed away ori November 10, 2023 in . Michigan, his permanent residency.: Florida:Statutes Section 'l.9.6,081(1)(a)provides. that a veteran musthave died:in this State to qualify or have his surviving spouse: qualify for the exemption. The Property Appraiser's exhibits included the following: Notice of Disapproval of Application for Property Tax Exemption; 2024. Denial; Original Application for Homestead and related tax exemptions; F16rida Vehicle Registration; Summary ofBenefits from the Department of Veteran's Affairs and Florida Statutes 196,081(1)(a):: . The Petitioner's exhibits included the -Ulowing: Letters to the Value Adjustment Board :dated July. 23., 2024:and August 27,2024; Notice of Disapproval of Application for Property Tax Exemption; Summary of Benefits from the - - - Department: of Veteran's Affairs;:Ceitificate of Death; :Driver's:Lieense; Marriage License; and Certificate::of Live Birth. All documents were admissible and evidence:from the PAO and the Petitioner was adinintted without objection Conclusions of Law: Although well deserving; FloridaStatutes, Section 196.081 does not allow for the total and permanent exemption _for a veteran's surviving spouse unless the veteran.was a Florida resident at the:time of death. As 1V1r :Harris:die.d in Michigan; :his surviving spouse would not qualify as the legislation is presently written, and therefore, the exemption. must be denied. Florida Statute Section :196.08:1 provides. that if a veteran who`was totally: and permanently: disabled .: : was a resident of this state as of January 1 of the tax year for which the exemption is being claimed or was a permanent resident of this: state on --January. l : of the yearahe veteran died: ow q. 2024-021. :: :: Page 2 : . of 2 DR -485V DECISLON OF THE VALUE'ADJUSTMENT BOARD.:°R. 11123 VALUE ON Rule 12D-16'002 F.A.C. ".. Eff. 14 23 Indian River ::".:County:;.: FLORIDA::. The.actions:below were: taken on your petition. ✓ These actions:are a recommendation only, not final ❑:These: actions are .a final decision of the VAB If.you: are not satisfied.afteryou are notified. of'thd .final decision of the VAB,'you.hav"e'the-rig ht:to file a.lawsuit in -circuit courtto further contest your assessment. (See; sections: 193.155(8)(1);:194.036,194..171(2),194.181,196151, and. 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) ....:' Petition:# :2024-063 :: :Parcel: I GR .33383500001014000001.0 Petitioner name BESTCHOICE PROPERTIES.: Property 2305 86TH AVE SW The etitioner is: ✓taxa er of record ❑ tax payer' address p p.Y. P y-.. 329 8 :representative - .VERO BEACH, FL 6 . ❑ other, explain: Dec is ion. Summary: ❑ Denied -your petition ❑✓ . Granted your petition :: ❑ Granted your:petition in part `:: =Value from ::.Before'B6ard Action :After Board: :Value. 'Lines _1 and 4 must' be completed . TRIM Notice .: value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.02510 ; F.A.C.:::. Action 1.:"Just value, required 642,618.00 -642,618.00 _519;300.0.0 "2. Assessed or classified use: value,*, ifapplicable: _: 199;200.00 199,200.00 199,200:00 3. Exempt value enter:' if none-": .. :0.0.0: :.. 0.00: 0.00: 4. Taxablevalue,* required 443,418.00....: 443,418.00 : 320,100.00" *nu %ml ncz ontPrPrl chnnlri ha nnunty taxable values. School: and other taxing authority values'may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) :: Reasons for Decision:. :.: :: • : Fill -infields will expand, 6(aidd pages as.needed: Findings of Fact (See Attached) :Conclusions of Law;; - (See Attached)..:' ❑✓ :Recommanded ;Decisiori pf Special Magistrate Finding and;conclusibhi above are recommendations: : Scott Sehr .' ;' Scott-Sehr ..... 04/07/2025 • : Signature, special magistrate Print:nanie Date Terri :C011inS-Lister Terni :Collins -Lister. Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date :Jf this is, a"recommended decision', the board: will consider the recommended:decision on at Address If the -fine above- is blank,: the board: does not yet know the date, time, and place when the: recommended. decision: will be considered::To find. the information, please call 772-226-1432: or visit our website:at //vab.indian-river.org/Axia202' ❑-Final Decision of the Value. Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value: adjustment board Print name Date of decision.: Signature, VAB: clerk or representative:::: Print name.:::: Date mailed Wpar ies .: Page !:of 3 Findings of Fact for Petition -2024-063: . Tconducted: a hearing that occurred on 14, 20.24 for the:' orrectness: of the The Appraiser Special Magistrate (SM). 2024 Just/Market Value -of 2305 86 Ave SW (33-38-35-00001-0140-00001:0) in Vero Beach: Afthe hearing were the Special Magistrate, clerk (Terri); representatives from Indian River County: Property Appraisers. Office (PAO) were:: Robert Taylor and Matt Mosel; and the petitioner (PET) Edward Kuvlesky/Best Choice Properties 2 LLC. Both parties presented;evidence in support -of their opinions: f6f the subject value The TAO evidence consisted of a cover page; :inforiii-aiion/evidence request. letter, evidence exchange 12D-9.020 document-,: methodology and: consideration page,: 193.01 .1 -Factors to consider document, email from -PET, subject property;card, aerial/intenoraubject photos, comparable grid, map :of subject and comparables, property cards aiid aerial -photos ofthe comparables_. Al 5% cos .(cost of sale) adjustment was considered: The PET evidence consisted -of an email with VAB, land survey, floorplan pages, construction cost -pages (typed budgets, invoices, quotes, receipts etc)::: :.. All documents:were admissible;:and all evidence was.admitted into evidence with6dt objection.: Upon examination:of the evidence submitted, the subject is a 17.2 acre parcel: with a 4,800: sf structure. Atthe:heari.ng , the PAO and PET both indicated- the structure: does not meet code=to be -a habitable dwelling :and is a partially overimproved barn (upgraded kitchen, A/C areas, not o .typical: horse/animal farm barn. The and has 1,600 sf. : garage area and 4,800 sf enclosed A/C area. There -are interior finishes. of electric, plumbing, drywall; interior walls, kitchen, bathrooms:to facilitate an office/business/working:area. The VAB presented a comparable grid with three sales •including the subject 2023 transaction PAO sale l was the subject sale::Sale 2 is .a :12.5 acre parcel with:a 2660 `barn/stable`area and 1.440 sf living area :(A/C, kitchen, bathrooms etc). Sale 3 has 18:72 acres with a small -open pole'barn (420: sf). The PAO addressed the: differences in land value from sales 2: & 3 northeast of I-95 location toahe subjects south location west of I=95: The wind load'constructiori codes were discussed: which the:'subject building as•built cannot be habitable for living purposes and can function as a business/farm structure.:: -The PET provided -construction' costs :which appear to adequately cover the structure, plumbing (rough in -not -f nished bathrooms), electrical costs, A/C and partial cost of the septic system (invoice had a discounted total of $4,500 with only :$2,250.on the full budget sheet. These :were older :costs with :invoice dates back in 2021: The PAO coinmerited on the increase in construction costs. The cement -invoice did not include all costs associated With Jeff Wilson Masonry Services:portion :of the work. The invoice indicated additional costs: the owner & that time: was responsible :for: that were not noted in the budget sheet: permit; dumpster for site, dumpster.for concrete. Washout, power (electric cost on budget sheet do: not showmain feed costs): with the water costs appearing:on the budget from Robert Scarborough - - - Wells. The -total budget of.$163,111 is considered to be low for costs as of the Jan 1, 2024 effective date. Plus these - additional items which were not in the:budget; :cost of sand for septic (invoice indicated not included: in price), :material & labor for kitchen, bathrooms; interior walls: etc that did not. appear to;be included iri the budget. The kitchen, bathrooms, walls etchave value. for: functionality allowing for -multiple different usages.of the' structure : - The PAO and PET somewhat agree on the land values basedon the location of the parcel with similar access dirt roads. The: area where they disagree is :with the :additional structure .value. PAO sale had a:420 sf open pole. barn which has minimal value and is basically a large parcel with a tree farm. The PAO did provide a building value of $2:64,155 for -sale 2 having a small livmg.area of 1,-140 sf, 380 sf carport -and non -A/C barn area of 2,660 sf which is an older structure -built in 2011: The SM reviewed the data presented by both parties.. The SM concurs on the low side: with the PAO land value portion ofahe assessment at $219,300. The'structure value prior to the hearing of $423,318 appears high as the dwelling:.:: cannot be lived in as'a typical -home due to not meeting eode'for a full-time living dwelling. The -building does'have value being composed of a::1'5600 sf garage/storage: area and:4,800 sf:ofA/C enclosed semi=finished area. Thee:: construction costs provided a staring point for valuation for the structure (shell), partial eleetrieLplumbmg'and A/C. The cost was from 2021 per invoice dates.and would require modification to costs ion the effective date..The SM also eonsideredthe finishings for the subject (kitchen; bathrooms; interior walls etc) and other construction costs not. . included: in the budget when :comparmg:to PAO. sale 2 structure. .: PAO sale 2 building breakdown is noted to be 27% -living -A/C area, 9% carport and. 64% barn/stable. The: subject structure has 25% forahe:garage: area and.75%o for the A/C -enclosed area.:These figures along with building budget: Costs were: considered in the building valuation. Overall -for all areas combined -the subject is 33%larger in size and ::sale 2 A/C. area is:less than 25% of the aubject A/C area.: The subject incomplete -building budget with -a 20-25% cost increase, additional costs for construction items not .2024-063 1D Page 2 of included in the budget, finishings as mentioned previously -arid the full: size of the structure: is reasonably supported at a value of $300,000 (approx:$47 per sfx 6,400 sf):-The building hassignificant value as it:has a large:area und:erA/C, .: . which can be utilized for-business/farm support purposes and the ad'ditionalaarge garage area which has many uses. The SM considered the :structure to :have substantial: value due to :its overallsize and utility (larger than typical garage area and 4;800 sf under A/C allowing fora myriad. of usage other than :living area (ag and other commercial use). Having:electric and:plumbin —.(well/septic) in place is a plus Tor further expanding on parcel improvements: Taking the land: :value: of $219,300 and an:existing structure value:of $300:000 returns:a value:of $519;300 for the::: subject: The subject was purchasedfor:$800'000'with anon -habitable structure. original: purchase:price was:$1,000,000 and: reduced to $800,000 per PET prior- agreement if the dwelling could not be habitable. -' The value of $519,300. is: more than sufficient to cover the 15%0 :cos (cost ofsale) adjustments (approx:35% from: purchase price). This value is based on the land and structure maintaining AG usage. Any changes Wthe parcel would warrant modifications to the assessment. The subjeci:Just/Market-value prior to the: hearing of $642,61$ is higher .than the data:shows indicating a revision is: warranted.: In -conclusion, it is the magistrate's: opinion that the PAO sales; PET cost analysis. and additional evidenceprovided sufficient credible data t' Aetermine a supported Just value for:the subject. Factoring:all the evidence provided, $519,300 is a supported Just -Value for the subject: The PET -request for a value revision is -approved based -on the evidence presented::: :... Conclusions of Lawlor Petition: 2024 -063 - Florida Law allows the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to :.establish a:presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence.must "prove by a preponderance of the. evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193:011, Florida Statutes;: and: professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the "instant matter, the: Property Appraiser established -a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence -that the - Property:Appraiser's just valuation methodology: complies:with Section 193.011; Florida "Statutes and professionally .: . accepted appraisal practices. Since -the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the -Petitioner must overcome :,the established presumption of correctness by:proving that the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence: that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or. (b) the Property:Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on'appraisal practices:ihat are different from"the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser :to comparable property within the same: county: In the instant matter, the Petitioner overcame the. Property Appraiser'a established presumption of 6orrectriess because" the admitted evidence proves:by a preponderance of the evidence that (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value;:or (b):the.PropertyAppraiser? s just valuation is arbitrarily:based on appraisal practices:that are different :. . from the appraisal practices generally applied: by the Property Appraiser to -comparable property within the same county. Further; competent substantial evidence of just:value, which cum ulatively:meets the: criteria of:Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and :professionally accepted appraisal practices, exists in the record for the Special Magistrate: to establish a revised just:value. 2024-063::.: Page 3 of 3 The_actions below werb:taken on your petition. These actions:are a recommendation only, not final :❑;These: actions aye a final decision of the VAB If.youare not satisfied.after you are; notified. of'the .final decision of the VAB; you.have'the right:to file a.lawsuit- in circuit court to further. contest- your assessment. See: sections 1:93-155(8). I :194.036,194.171 2 ,194.181,196:151, and. (.....(.).., O :194 .. 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition.:# :2024-066: Parcel:ID'32403200046000000312.0. Petitioner name RETRUST LLCW MIHAI IONESCU.SOLE P Property 3500 OCEAN:DR 312:: The: petitioner is: ✓❑ taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayers address . 'VE CH, FL 32963 representative ... RO BEA ❑ other, explain: ..... -- Decis:ion Summary: 2 Denied your petition : Granted_ your petition:; Ll Grbhtedyour petition In pari = ::Value ::.: :: ::: Value from 'Before_Board Action .. . Valbe presented by properly appraiser After Board:: Lines .1. and 4 must' be completed . . -_ TRIM Notice . Rule_ 12D-9.02510 , F.A.C.:::.: Action ..... .. . 1.. Just value, required -487,050.00 487,050.00 4871050.00 :2. Assessed or classified use: value,*. if applicable: 497"050.00' 487105Q.00 487;050:00 Exempt value,* enter:' O" if none. Q.0.0& : ' .: 0.00 ..: . 0.00: 4 Taxable.value,* required 487,050.00.. 487,050.00 ° 487,050.00 :*All values entered should be county: taxable.values. School. and other taxing authority values may differ:.(Section 196.031(7), F.S.) : . Fill-in fields will expand, or:add pages as.rieeded.' Reasons for Decision: : --- _ : .. Findings of. Fact (See Attached) :.Conclusions of Law:: The relief is denied, and thisAecision. is' issued. so that the Petitioner's. right to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. ❑✓ :Recommended:Decision:of Special Magistrate Finding and: conclusions above are recommendations: Stephen Neill .. :. Stephen Neill .02/14/2025_ Signature, special magistrate Print:harne :Date •- Terri:Collins-Lister Terri :Collins -Lister 03/05/2025 .. . Da Signature, VAB clerk or special representative _ _ ° Print name to If this is:a:recommended decision, the boardwill consider the recommended:decision on at: Address - - If the fine aboye is blank, the board :does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended: decision will be considered::To find the information, please call 772-226-1432: or visit our website:at //vab.indian-river,org/Axia20� ❑.Final Decision of the Value. Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB: clerk or representative-* : Rrint name Tbiie mailed to:parties :. 2024-066:: Page l of 2 12- :. DR -485V ...DECISI.O.N OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD .:° R. 1v23 VALUE PETITIQN:: Rule 12�-16:002 F.A.C. .:: Eff. 11/23 ::.:. Indian River ::.:County:-:: FLORIDA.: The: actions below were taken on your petition. These actions:are a recommendation: only, not_final ❑:These: actions are -'a finaldecision of the VAB ::. If you:are not satisfied after you are notified- of the .final decision of the VAB,-you.have the"rightao file a.lawsuit. in circuit court to further contest: your assessment. (See:sections:193.155(8).(I),.194.036,194_.171(2),194.181,196:151, and. 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition:#2024-067.:: Parcel;ID:33390400001014000002.1 Petitioner name HILL.ALEXANDRA : Property 536616TH ST:: The" etitioner ls: tax a er of record ❑ tax a er's address _ p ... p . Y .. I? y... :VE 66 .- RO BEACH, FL 329 representative ❑ other, explain:.... Decision Summary: (] Denied your petition ❑✓ :Granted„your petition: ElGranted your:petition in part ::Value.: Value from .'Before Board Action After Board::: Lines .1- and 4 must be completed . . . . : TRIM Notice Value presented by properly appraiser Rule:12D-9.02510 ; F.A.C.::: : Action TAU value, required -685,633.00 685,633.00 640,600.0.0- 2. Assessed or classified use:value,*. if.applicable' ::: 685;633.00 ':::: 685,633.00 640,600:00 3: Exempt value,* enter:"0" if none.: 50,000.0.0: 50,000-001 50;000.00: 4 Taxable Value,* required 635,633.00 ..... 635,633.00 ..: 590;600.00 *AII values entered should be county: taxable.values. School. and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) : . Reasons for Decision.. ..... ..... Fill-in fields will expand, or'add pages as -heeded' Findings of: Fact (See Atta'che'd) q. Conclusions of Law:: (See. Attached) ..:' ....' ❑✓ :Recommended:Decision:of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Douglas Lawson 01/09/2025. Z Douglas Lawson Signature, special magistrate Print:name :Date Terri:Collins-Lister : : Terri.Collins-Lister Print name Signature, VAB clerk or special representative : Date :If this is:a:recomme'n.ded decision, the board:will consider the recommended: decisionon at Address .... If the -line above is blank,. the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the: recommended: decision will be considered::To find the information, please call 772-226-1432 or visit our website.at //vab.indian-river.org/Axia202 ❑_Final Decision of the"Value-Adjustment Board' ...... Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision q. Signature, VAB: clerk or represi6ntative os::Print name::::: Date mailed to:parties . 2024-067 : Page i of 4 =14- Findings of Fact -for Petition -2024-067: Findings: of Fact :for:Petition2024-083 :: Axia: includes the Petition and Hearing notice.. List of Property Appraiser's: witnesses and Exhibits: The Property Appraiser'sOffice (PA.) was represented at the Hearing by _Robert Tayler and Kevin Kinel. Mr. Taylor` discussed the submitted. multiple evidence:documents;which includes several key: documents; Information Request Letter; Exchange of evidence 12D-9.020; Methodology and Considerations by :the Property Appraiser, Factors to consider: in deriving just valuation 193:011, Comparable Sates Report;:Comparable Sales Map(s),Aerial Imagery, Property Record Card for the Subject, Property Record Cards for ;all Comparable properties, -Case Law, Copy of Value Adjustment:Board Withdrawal of.Petition: form, and.Copy of Petition filed with the Value Adjustment:B:oard. The assessed just/market value of the:property :is: $676,92:1 List of Petitioner's witnesses and Exhibits:: The Petitioner was represented at the Hearing by the owner,-Arjuan Agerwala, and his Agent, Stephen Boyle: The Petitioner: submitted several evidence: documents; including :a market: value appraisal, property summary, photos, and; an- analysis: of comparable sales. Overview of the- Subject Property: ..... The subject property is a single-family: residence: situated:at:5366 16th:Street: in in Vero:Beach. The -parcel number is:: 33390400001014000002.1. According to the property record; the : SFR, -built in 1995; has 3;005 et :square.feof living space: and sits: on a 0.71 -acre dry lot. It has good quality construction features fourbedrooms, :four bathrooms, central Air conditioning; and'a two -car garage.: PA indicates the home is in good condition. The. property was last purchased on February 15, 2023jor $805;0.00 or $267 psf of Living Area: (LA), and:its current market value is.$6:85,633, or:$228 psf of LA. Summary -of Evidence presented by the Property Appraiser::'; Mr. Taylor: reviews the Property Appraiser's evidence packages and: discusses: general information about the valuation of properties in;Indian-River County, including mass appraisal statements; assumptions, and support for -the cost of sale.:PA has:the Presumption of Correctness:: The property card:is: included:along with an aerial:photo.:He states that the subject improvements have been updated. The LA includes the guest quarters. The evidence presents four comparable sales within or near :the subject's neighborhood;: sold in 2023: These ..: comparables indicate a sale price range of $660,000 to $799,000.:Mr. Kinel discussed the sales and has minimized some.of the:adjustments. fie discusses the:adjustments:and the: Cost of sale: adjustments. MLS was used: to support condition adjustments. The 2024 Market/Just value for Subject property was determined -by using 2023 Market Sales. Three of.the sales are adjusied:upward:$M psf:for`.condition. Living Area is adjusted.at $125 psf:: Aft er:adjustinents, the: sales indicated a value :range id$657,925 AO $707;715 and average $676;921. The PA notes that the subject's assessed value falls within the range of adjusted comparable sales. The Adjusted Price per Sq Ft of Comps 1-4 are:(Comparable- #1 - $207 per sq ft::of living:area. Comparable 42- $218 -per sq ft; of:living area. Comparable #3:-: $266 per sq ft. of living area. Comparable #44419 per sq ft of living area. The subjects Market /Just value is currently on:the tax roll: at a rate:of $228 per sqft of living area. After reviewing the .comparables that are �provided;:PA concludes :the Market/Just_Value of the subject property to be supported by the comparables, a current rate -of $685,626 assessment for the 2.024 Tax Roll year.::: The -PA includes neighborhood sales statistics (2022 present). and a sales location maps. Property record cards and maps are in: for all sales: PA has discussedahe matter previously with the owners and has adjusted the :way the gusthouse was valued. The value was adjusted down from $711,000 to $685,633. Summary -of Evidence presented by the Petitioner:: The Petitioner presented four evidence. packages, including a market:value appraisal, property information and comparable data. Based on the appraiser's -measurements, the living area is calculated at 2,483 SF versus 2,575 -SF used :by the PA. There :are two of the compartable sales: used by :the Petitioner that: match the :PA sales data. PA Sale :1 itsPetitioner sale 4; and PA sale 2 is Petitioner sale'1. Mr. Boyle discusses the gust house: being one of the differences in the analyses. The:guesthouse is broken out separately: from the main house. The finish'is not as good as:the main house: 2024-067::..: Page 2 of 4 =15- The five comps indicate $23k$2205 $222, $252; and $225 p:sf, indicating strong`support for a value between $220 and $230psf Petitioner:included all sales data within 2,500 ft that range from $220 to $250. psf. The property owner discusses their: purchase; which was under time duressao buy:'He: did not:have a real:estate agent and did not understand some features: He says it -does not have impact: windows; it is wood' frame; low -ceilings and is :on a septic tank He. states they overpaid :for the' house. The prior renovations: are not permitted and: there are issues with the quality of improvements: ... Rebuttal Testimony: ::.: :: Mr. Taylor. (Property. Appraiser) refers the Petitioners appraisal at $675,000 compared to:the AV of. $685,633; w'hich':: includes COS deduction. He disagrees with. the Petitioner's assertion that -the value should be $275,000 less than the purchase price::PA asked if there is'a mortgage and what that is. Petitioner did not respond with:an:amount.:PA feels the county's adjustments:are appropriate: He suggests the PA remeasure the home-based on the:Petitioner:'s -:appraisal-size difference. PAahen reviews the matched sales; for differences. The:differerice in bathroom count: results :. from -the way they looke& at the guest house. Mr. Boyle indicates his value did not include the 15% cost -of sale adjustment: He also states the PA takes the 15% ::COS prior:to making adjustments which:is noi:a standard: order of adjustment and it impacts the adjusted value :. . upward. He reviews the comps and adjustments appl.iedby the PA. MLS details are reviewed. Petitioner shows the PA adjustmentfor their sale 2 has an upward site value :adjustment of. $20,000.: He refers: to the PA records that indicate. a . downward: adjustment should be applied; not upward. PA a tees with :the Petitioner's statement on Land value :adjustment to PA sale 2, that the adjustment is -in the wrong: direction. Detailed discussion was:provided: on each .of:the PA :sales with; reference: to NMS. condition'And :quality. statements. He discusses problems with the subject that are not evident (shutters:and septitank)..Owner states they. .:overpaid for the house. :. Special Magistrate's analysis and Finding:of Facts: -::::: The PAO presented evidence to support the market value. -The Property Appraiser has included a sales comparison :approach and applied adjustments to:theGales compared to the subject: After both parties were given the opportunity..to be Beard, the special magistrate finds: that property appraiser's just:: valuation methodology complies with section -193.011, F.S.; and professionally a ccepted.appraisal practices. Property. Appraiser: established a presumption:of correctness for the assessment: The Petitioner provided an appraisal based on their: inspection,, and the resulting value of $675,000 less 15% would indicate $573;750, which'is 716/o of: the purchase price.:: The Magistrate gave: the following Remand instructions to the PA: Please check:building:measureinents and area ::... calculations and report back to Magistrate :within seven -days.. The PA remeasured the home and:Remand was returned on November: -19th. The. PA has .calculated:the living area at 2,482 SF, for a: total la. of 2,912 :SF'including: guest House. This is a -decrease of 93 SF and like the Petitioner's figure. PA also revised their -assessed value to $665,721. or$229 psf, a reduction of about $20,000. Pk also refers:to the Petitioners'. appraisal that indicates.a value :of $232p' It is . ::. noted the Petitioner's value did not include a. deduction for cost of sale: Magistrate reviews the 2 matched sales. PA sale 2 -indicates an adjusted value of $707,715 and Petitioner adjusts this sale to:$698,IK:or:$593,385'after COS: The main difference is for guest house:methodology, sites ze/land value, and-.` condition. PA sale 1 indicates an adjusted value of $657,925 and Petitioner -adjusts this sale to $691,400 or $587;690 after COS. Th' main difference s for guesthouse methodology; site size/land value; and condition. The PA: has provided a Revised Appraisal (due to: size change) not yetreflected in Axia: The Magistrate has. rev: the features of the structure along with testimony on the quality/condition; and the sales used by the parties. The lower quality construction observation:for the guesthouse: is -reasonable: The P.etitioner's assessment :of the interior quality . and condition is given weight due to their inspection and certification: Numerous sale adjustment factors such as the :land value:adjusiment to sale 2, and the quality/conditiodfactors were reviewed:resulting-in a concluded value reduction of $35,000 -along with the approximate $20;000 reduction for the reduced building area. These f gures were deducted from:the original AV of $685,633.: Magistrate has reconciled to a Rounded dust Value:at $640,600, which:is reasonably supported by the sales data and represents 80%a of the saleprice. The Petitioner has overcome the.presumptioriof correctness established at the hearing by the property appraiser.. 2024-067:..: Page 3 of 4 =16- Petitioner -did prove by a preponderance that the property appraiser's valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily: based .on :appraisal -practices: that are: different from those: generally: applied by:the property appraiser to comparable property in Indian River County.' rat The magiste: recommends a Revised Just Value of $640,600:: Conclusions of Law -for -Petition. 2024-067- Florida Law.allows the Property:Appraiser to;establisli:a presumption of:c6irectness::For the: Property:Appraiser::to:: establish a:presumption of correctness for the assessment; the admitted evidence. must prove by a preponderance of the . evidence that the: Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section Y93.011,:Florida :Statutes and professionally accepted: appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for:the assessment because the admitted: evidence proves by: a:preponderance of:thei tyidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011; Florida Statutes: and and accepted: appraisal -practices -Since th'Tioperty. Appraiser established:a presumption of correctness;: the Petitioner must overcomeahe established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance:of the' evidence that' (a) the Property Appraiser.'s just valuation does:not represent just value; or (b) the Property. Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal . practices generally applied by: the Property Appraiser to comparable property:within the same county. In the instant . matter, the Petitioner over the Property. Appraiser's established presumption_ of correctness because the admitted evidence proves by a'preponderance of the evidence:that (a) the'.Property Appraiser's: just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices: that are different from the: appraisal practices generally applied by. the Property Appraiser to comparable. property within the: same county. Further," competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively_meets the:criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally: accepted: appraisal :practice's exists in the record: for Special. Magistrate to establish a revised just value.: 2024-067.:..: .` Page 4 -of 4 -1.7- The actions below were: taken -on your petition. ❑✓ These actions are a recommendations only, not final ;These. actions area final decision of the VAB If-you:are not satisfied after you are notified. of the .final decision of the VAB; 'you.have the right:to file a. lawsuit. . in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See:sections.193.155(8)(1);:194.036, ,194.171(2),194.181,196151, and:: .197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition:# :2024-080 Parcel: ID:33390400038000000D01.0 Petitioner name FIRSTPOINTE ADVISORS,: LLC Property : 5155 20TH ST petitioner is: 0 taxpayer of record taxpayer's . address .The representative VERO BEACH, FL 32966 ❑ other, ex Iain: :.. Decision Summary: Denied your petition . ❑_Granted your petition-': ❑Granted your:petition in part Value. Value from :. a ore:Board Action After Board:: Lines .1. and 4 must' be completed .. TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Rule:12D-9.02510 ; F.A.C.:: I Action 1.. Just value, required5;067,179.00 5,067,179.00 5,067,179.0.0 :2. Assessed or classified use:value,*: ifapplicable :: 5,06:7;-179.00 5,067,1:79:.00 :5,067,179:00 3. Exempt value,* enter:"0" if none -':0..0.0: , 0.00:. 0.00: 4. Tazable.walue,* required 5;067,1.79.00 . _ .:° .. 5,067,1.79.00 5,067;179.00 *All values'entered should be county. taxable.values. School: and other taxing authority values may differ:.(Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision:..: .... = : Fill-in fields will expand, or:add pages as.needed: Findings of Fact (See Attached) :.. . ..Conclusions of Law Pursuant to RUIe..12D-9.021.; (8) of. the. Florida Administrative:Code, the. relief is -denied and the decision -is being issued in . orderthat any:rig - the petitioner may have to:bring an action: in circuit court is not:impaired::: E :Recommended Decision:& Special:Magistrate :Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Stephen J Boyle .. ..... ..... Stephen J Boyle 02/11/2025 Signature, 'special magistrate Print:name : =Date Terri Collins -Lister � � - :::.: Terri :Collins -Lister ::.: 03/05/2025 Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date : If this is:a:recommen.ded decision', the board: will consider the recommended: decision on at: Address .... If the line above is blank,: the board :does not yet know the date, time; and place when the: recommended: decision: will be considered: To find -the information, please call 772-226-1432: or visit our website at //vab.indian-river.org/Axia202' EI.FinAl Decision of the'Value.Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision..: Signature, VAB: clerk or representative:::: Print name::::: 77bate mailed to;parties :: 2024-080::. ::. ... ... Page i :of 2 -i8- DR -485V ....... DECISI.ON OF THE VALUE'ADJU-STMENT .BOARD R. 11/23. .: Rule Vo -%.002 F.A.C. PETITION:. Eff. 11z :. FLORIDA::..:. :. :. Indian River . .: Count The- actions below were taken on your petition. ❑✓ These' actions:are a recommendation: only, not final ' 'EJ: These. actions are a final: decision of the VAB If,you;are not satisfied.after you :are notified. of the .final. decision of the VAB, you have the right:to file a lawsuit. . in circuit court to further contest your assessment.(See:sections193.155(8)(1);194.036,194,.171(2),_194.181,196:151, and. 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition:# -2024-082 :: :.:Parcel: ID33390600001014000005.0 :: Petitioner narrie FIRSTPOINTE ADVISORS.: LLC Property 1700 WATERFORD DR: The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address ....:VERO BEACH, FL 32966 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary: Q Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition:: ❑Granted your -petition in part :::Value.: ° Value from Before Board Action Board:: . _ _::Lines .1. and 4 must be completed . ...: .: .. TRIM Notice - ...: appraiser Value presented by property F.A.C.: ::. Rule:12D-9.02510 ; Action � : .. 1.: -Just value, required 11,069,577.00' 11,069,577.00 11.,069,577.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* ifapplicable 11,069,577.00 ::::: 1:1,069,577:.00 :; 11.,069,577:00 & Exempt value,* enter:°Q" if none.: ::.. 0.0.0: :::. 0.00 :. 0.00: 4.78xable.value,* required.. 11;069,577.00-.. 1:1,069,577-00 11,069;577.00 "All values entered should be county: taxable.values. School: and other taxing authority values may differ:.(Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision : - :: - Fill -infields will expand, or: add pages as needed: Findings of: Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law. Pursuant to Rule- :12D-9.021;' (8) of. the.Florida Adrrministrative:Code, the. relief is.denied and the decision.is being issued in . order -that any:right the petitioner may have to bring an action, in circuit court is not -impaired.::: ❑✓ : Recommended Decision :Of Special -Magistrate Finding and: conclusions above are recommendations. Stephen J Boyle 02/1°1/2025 Stephen J. Boyle .. Y p -Signature, special magistrate Print:narne ::Date Terri Collins -Lister .Terri :Collins -Lister 03/06/2025 Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name _° Date If this is:a:recomme-n.ded decision:, the board: will consider the recommended: decision on at Address .... If the-lii.ne above is blank,: the board::does not yet know the date, time, and place when the: recommended decision will be.:. considered: To find -the information, please call 772-226-1432 ' = or visit our website:at //vab.indian-river.org/Axia20e ❑.FMAI' Decision of the Value. Adjustment Board .-Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision. Signature, VAB:clerk or representative:' ::: Print name.:::: Date mailed to:parties:: 2024-082 Page i of 2 20 - The actions below were taken on your petition. These actions:are a recommendation' only, not final ❑:These: actions area final decision of the VAB If.you:are riot satisfied after you are: notified of the final decision of the VAB°, you.have*the'right:to file a.lawsuit. . in .circuit courtto further: contest. your assessment. (See: sections 193.155(8)(1);:194.036,194.171(2),194.181,196:151, and. 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) 'Petition:#:2024-083-:: :Parcel: ID 33392:100024000000015.0.:: Petitioner name DEAN: BOGDANO.WICH :. Property 438 JACQUELINE WAY:SVU The petitioner is: ✓❑ taxpayer of -record ❑: taxpayer's address; . . .VERO BEACH, FL 32968 :... representative - : ; ❑ other, explain: q ..... Signature, chair, value adjustment board Decision Summary: 2 Deniedyour petition ❑Granted your petition ❑Granted your•petition in part Value.` :: Value from .Before:Board Action .:After Board::_ Lines .1. and 4 must' be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Rule:12D-9.02510 r F.A.C.:: Action . ..... 1. Just value, required 794,812.00 794,812.00 .=794;812.00 2. Assessed or classified use:value,* f:applicable, ": 779;813.00 779,81:3..00 779,8:13:00 .. 3; Exempt value,* enter:" Q" if none.: :. 50,000.0.0 50,000.00 50,000.00: 4. Taxable value,* required 729,813.00 _ - 729,813.00 729,813.00 .*All values entered should be county. taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) ❑✓ .Recommended: Decision.of Special Magistrate Finding and: conclusions. above are recommendations. : Douglas Lawson - ' ..... - Douglas Lawson .01/G6/2025. Signature, special magistrate :... Print:name Date - Terri _Collins -Lister : Terri :Collins -Lister , Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision-, the board'will consider the recommend.ed:decision on at Address .... if the line above is blank,: the board::does not yet know the date, time, and place when the:recommended decision: will be considered::To find the information, please call 772-226-1432: or visit our website:at //vab.indian-river.org/Axia20.,4 ❑.Final Decision of the Value,Adjustment Board q ..... Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAR clerk or representative: ::Print name:::: Date mailed to:parties:: w. 2024-083. Page i :of 3 =22- .. Findings of Fact -for Petition -2024-083: Axia includes the: Petition and Hearing notice:.:: _ List of Property Appraiser's witnesses and Exhibits::; The Property Appraiser's Office (PA) was represented at the Hearing by Austin Boller: Mr Boller submitted four evidence: documents; which inat' ludes;several key:documents:::Inforrnon Request Letter`•: Exchange of evidence 12D-9.020; Methodologyand Considerations:by the Property Appraiser, -Factors to consider in deriving just valuation 193.0:11, Comparable: Sales Report;: Comparable Sales Map(s): Aerial Imagery, Property Record Card:for: the Subject, Property Record Cards for all Comparable properties, Case Law, Copyof Value Adjustment Board-Withdrawal'of Petition form, and :Copy of Petition filed:with the Value Adjustment Board The assessed just/market value of the property is $794,812. . List of Petitioner's witnesses and Exhibits: The Petitioner was: represented at the Hearing by the owners Dean and Karen:Bogdanowieh. The: Petitioner submitted a -27 -page document as part of the evidence; which includes a closing statement, property summary, photos, and an analysis of comparable sales. Overview: of the Subject Property: The subject property is a single-family residence situated at 438 Jacqueline Way SW in the Lake Saphire,West subdivision- InVero Beach. The parcel number is 33392100024000000015.0. According to the property record, the .. SFR, built:in 2022; Has 2,758 square feet of living -space and sits on a 0.31 -acre dry lot It has good_ quality construction features three:bedrooms; three bathrooms, central air conditionmg;:pool/spa; and athree-car garage. PA indicates the home is 1 year old and in excellent condition. The property -was last purchased on January 21, 2022, for $6.07;600, and its current inarketvalue is $794,812.:::: Summary:of Evidence presented bythe Propeity:Appraiser Mr. Boller reviews the Property Appraiser's evidence packages and discusses general information about valuation of properties in Indian River County, including mass appraisal statements, :assumptions,: -and support for the:eost of sale. PA has the'Presumption of Correctness. Property card is included along with an -aerial photo. a . The evidence presents four comparable sales within the subject's immediate neighborhood, soldin 2022 & 2023: These comparables indicate a sale price range of:$910,000.ao:$975,000:PA states: the subject sale and.453 Jacqueline Way were the last two developer sales. The contracts were established over a year prior to closing. These sales were. not given weight in their analysis: The Saphire.l akes market has beeii strong with 202-2 median qualified sales price of:$942,500;the 2023 :price is: $947,500; and 2024 is $950,000. The assessed value for the subject equates to 83.6% of median 2023 sales price and the $.288: psf AV is also in line with market data. Adjustments were considered for various factors such. as quality of construction, condition,, bathroom .count, size, parking, pool, and time of sale.. Adjustments were -Applied for waterfront locationo ofthe Comps adj s with twusted downward. All of the Comps have a pool, and an,adjustment_was applied for -spa; which the subject has. The homes are similar in quality, age and other features. A -15% adjustment for the cost of sale is applied to the. comparable sales: After adjustments, the sales indicated a value range of $783,500 to $818,750 and avera a $805,750 Subject AV equates. to.:84% of average sale price. The PA notes that the subject's assessed:value falls within the range of adjusted.: . comparable sales. The PA includes neighborhood sales statistics (2022 present) and a. sales -location maps: Property:' record cards and maps: are included :for all sales. Summary of Evidence presented by. the Petitioner: The Petitioner presents a 27 -page evidence package, including the purchase closing statement, Property informatiori and: comparable data. They paid $6:07,600: and the Petitioner states they have never been taxed on that:basis Mn, Bogdanowich refers:to 493 Jacqueline Way SW as'the only similar model to their home and the assessed value is $40,00.0 less thanAiis AV. It.sold in December 202:1 for $562100. Petitioners: discussed a: nearby property where the PA reduced the AV.:'Petitioners further discussed assessed values in the neighborhood. One of the sales in the Petitioner's package is 4.14. Jacqueline Way and: sold for $945,000. Mr. Bogdanowich refers to its assessed -value of $727,751 compared. to his assessed value of $794,912. He also discusses sales ida nearby subdivision. This sale supports the Assessed:value of:the subject_however the assessed.value:is:lower than: the subject. Magistrate observes the AV psf. Petitioner comments on the PA notapplying an adjustment for 2 -car versus 3 -car garages. The subject has a 3 -car 2024-083-- Page 2.of 3 =23- garage. Rebuttal Testimony: :. -Mr. Boller:(Property:Appraiser) refers to: 453 Jacqueline Way and addressed the:valuation: PA says:the data supports the assessed value of the subject: He has had previous communication with the owners. He notes the delays in the closing of the. sale that affected the: assessed value when they qualified for. Homestead: The evidence supplied by the: petitioner includes data from outside the'neighborhood that is inferior io the -subject and should not be used: He refers - to a 20-year-old'home and construction quality.: Some of:Petitioners comps are:7;miles:away in a: different (rural) market. He then discusses the Petitioner's comments for the PA not applying an adjustment for 2 -car versus 3 -car garages. PA states this would increase the: indicated:values of two: of the: Comps and further support the AV :. Mr. Bogdanowich objects to the PA statements on sales outside the neighborhood. Further discussion is provided on assessed:values and:Petitioner states their tax amount is one:of the highest in:the:neigliborhood. ... Special Magistrate's analysis and Finding .of Facts: ; The PAO presented evidence to support -the market value. The Property Appraiser has included a sales comparison approach- and applied adjustments toahe:sales compared to: the subject: After both parties were given the opporiunity:to be Beard, the special magistrate finds that property appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S.; 'and professionally accepted appraisal practices.:Property Appraise r. established a presumption:of correctness for the:assessment: The Petitioner emphasized the assessed values of the subject and comps.. Magistrate notes the lakefront lots have a an value of $59,500.and dry loisin the neighborhood: are valued at $55,25:0. The:value spread:appears:low, but:::: insufficient data to determine. PA used an adjustment factor. of $10,000. Magistrate also re views: the_ assessed value of the improvements for the subject and:the comparables. The AV psf.of. living area:for the subject equates to $268, which:: is within the range of five comps that indicate: $241 to $290 psf and an average of $260 ps£ Other features and depreciation. are factors.that affect the AM The Petitioner has not provided a comparative analysis (with adjustment) of comps but provided the property cards for. ::. several parcels, most of which:were used by the PA in their: analysis.:A review :of the data would not: support a:. reduction in the assessed value: -- The Petitioner failed: to overcome the:presumption of correctness established: at the hearing by the property: appraiser:::: : Petitioner did not prove by a preponderance that property appraiser's valuation does -not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from:the'appraisal practices generally applied:byahe property appraiser. to comparable property in _Indian River County. Conclusions of Law. for Petition 2024-083: Property: appraiser:established a presumption of correctness: for the assessment: at the hearing [Section 194.301 F,S.; ::::: Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.0:]. .... Petitioners failed to -overcome the presumption of correctness established at the hearing: by`property appraiser. The :petition is: denied:and the assessment st4 ands [Section 19301, F.S.-:Mile 12D-9:027, F:A:C.]. 2024-083 _ .... Page 3 _of 3 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Indian River County FLQRIDA The actions below were taken on your petition. DR -485V R. 11/23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1),194.036,194.171(2),194.181,196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2024-093 Parcel ID 31392300011000000021.0 Petitioner name CALKINS JAMES H Property 211 BEACHSIDE DR The petitioner is: ✓❑ taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's address ORCHID, FL 32963 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition Z Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. Action 1. Just value, required 11,126,326.00 11,126,326.00 11,050,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 11,126,326.00 11,126,326.00 11,050,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 11,076,326.00 11,076,326.00 11,000,000.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand, or add pages as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) ❑✓ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Scott Sehr Scott Sehr 03/28/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Terri Collins -Lister Terri Collins -Lister 03/28/2025 Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 772-226-1432 or visit our website at //vab.indian-river.org/Axia202 ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 2024-093 -25- Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2024-093: The Appraiser Special Magistrate (SM) conducted a hearing that occurred on Nov 14, 2024, for the correctness of the 2024 Just/Market Value of 211 Beachside Dr (31-39-23-00011-0000-00021.0) in Vero Beach. At the hearing were the Special Magistrate, Clerk (Terri); representatives from Indian River County Property Appraisers Office (PAO), Austin Boller, Alisa Barkett, and Kevin Kinel; and James Calkins, the petitioner (PET) with Janice Cosden & Alexandra Mishler from Cosden-Mishler Appraisers. Both parties presented evidence in support of their opinions for the subject value The PAO evidence consisted of a cover page, information/evidence request letter, evidence exchange 12D-9.020 document, methodology and consideration page, 193.011 Factors to consider document, emails from PET, copies of the PET appraisal, subject property card, subject MLS from the 2023 sale, land value analysis, aerial photos of subject and comparables, comparable grid, map of subject/comparables, property cards/ aerial photos of the comparables and case law documents. A 15% cos (cost of sale) adjustment was considered. The PET evidence consisted of an appraisal on a GP Residential form, assessment comparison pages, property cards for subject/comparables and time trend submitted as rebuttal/additional data. All documents were admissible, and all evidence was admitted into evidence without objection. Upon examination of the evidence submitted, the PAO provided a grid with four sales (two shared with the PET). The PAO applied adjustments to their grid for size, bathrooms, effective age, WFF (waterfront footage), location, and cos. No adjustments were applied for the subject's larger garage size than the comparables. The four sales provide an average adjusted value of $11,607,050. The PAO provided a vacant land analysis that showed the increasing land values from 2021 through 2023. The first page of the land analysis showed a breakdown of the price per sf and WFF. The second page of the land sales showed an increase in sale prices for parcels with a sale and a subsequent sale with a minimum increase of 4% monthly from 04/2021 to 05/2022. The other sales had 6% monthly from 06/2021 to 01/2023; the third was a 40% increase in 3 months (flip sale). This data does provide sufficient support for the subject land value portion at $3,093,179 ($25,354 WFF/between $81-82 per sf). ' The PAO commented on the vacant land sale in April 2021 next tothe subject. The aerial imagery shows the site was vacant/raw land on the effective date (photo flight date was Jan 2, ;2024, per PAO). This parcel has less buildable land, less front footage, and a wider WFF view. The land sale value plus an increase on the low end still supports the land assessment portion. The PET provided three copies of appraisals on the subject property. Their original submission to the PAO was not considered as it had four 2024 sales and one 2023 sale with an effective date of September 2024, which is after the effective date of value for this hearing (Jan 1, 2024 value date). That appraisal had a value of $10,065,000. Comparable 5 was actually a 2023 sale per the other appraisals and the PAO grid as this was a shared sale from November 2023. A second appraisal was presented, with six sales (4 from 2023 and 2 from 2019) and a value of $10,280,000 (signature date 10/22/2024, effective 12/31/2023). The third appraisal is the one reviewed for this hearing. It had the same six sales as the second appraisal plus an additional seventh sale (included as comp 5), which changed the value to $9,980,000 (signature date 10/30/2024). The PET presented one -line grids of the assessed values of the other beachfront properties in the subject subdivision. This data is irrelevant as the PAO does not compare assessments due to differences in sale dates, homestead exemptions, portability, etc. The PAO commented on the changes to the market values that fluctuate with market area values, with the owners having protections/caps in the Assessed/SOH value lines. The owner stated they purchased the dwelling with the furniture; however, without a tangible property appraisal and a separate real estate appraisal from the time of sale, the sale price is considered for the real estate. When the furnishings are left, it's for seller convenience (time, sell, donate, move items; etc.) to entice a buyer, Airbnb/short-term rental, etc. In the hearing folder was page 1 of the subject purchase contract. The contract indicated the items to be included in the sale per MLS listing and furniture as seen on 12/14/2022. The MLS was provided in the PAO evidence, which did not provide details or photos of the personal items. The contract did indicate that the vehicles in the garage, artwork, Ferrari dinnerware, wine, glasses, statues, glass turtle in the billiard room, and other personal items were not included in the sale. Hence, the remaining items left did not have value to the seller. The PAO and PET utilize two sales in common. 910 Reef Rd was adjusted for an inferior location by the PAO. The PET indicated the site size offset the location adjustment, which is not supported as the site size is similar and the WFF 2024-093 -26- Page 2 of 4 differs by 21f, which did not warrant an adjustment. The PET should have applied a location adjustment based on the data presented. The condition/quality, effective age, size, and bathroom adjustments are similar for both parties. 8150 Highway AIA was also similarly adjusted by both parties except the location adjustment by the PET. Without the location adjustment the adjusted values from both parties are less than $200,000 apart (less than 2% difference). PAO sale 2 is the highest sale from both parties. The PAO applied.a large effective age adjustment for being newer construction (no data were provided to confirm/dispute the adjustment), and it appeared reasonable and similar to the other comparable adjustments. 1916 Ocean Dr had an inferior age/effective age adjustment. No MLS data was presented to validate/dispute the adjustment. The PAO provided the adjustment amounts at the bottom of their grid, which appear reasonable for large luxury oceanfront properties. The PET had seven comparables. Comparable 5 was excluded per the PAO, indicating it was an auction sale and not a typical arms -length transaction. Comp 5 had a 100% overall increase from the sale price to the adjusted value, further reducing the credibility of this sale. Comparables 6 & 7 were from 2019. The PET did apply an increasing trend adjustment which the SM did not deem fully supported. The PET provided a one -line grid to support the adjustments; however, the data was not just for similar properties. A brief synopsis of the data showed a majority of the sales were inferior properties with sale prices below $ 5 million. There were 6 of 18 above $5M for 2019, 4 of 30 in 2020, 11 of 38 in 2021, 5 of 11 in 2022 and 4 of 13 in 2023. Further analysis shows the number of sales above $9M to be 1 for 2019 & 2020, 4 in 2021, 2 in 2022, and 3 in 2023. Looking at the data, the size of the dwellings is important, with the number of properties above 8,000 sf were 4 in 2019, 5 in 2020, 6 in 2021, 1 in 2022, and 3 in 2023. The three large sales in 2023 were the subject sale at $13M and two others at $22M & $22.5M. These sales, which are over 8,000 sqf in size, are much higher in value than those of smaller dwellings, reducing the credibility of the trend. Insufficient data was available on these sales to determine the size, condition, location, etc, prior to extracting a trend adjustment. PET sale 2 is not deemed comparable. It has a GLA almost half the subject size and a 0.3 -acre parcel, which is not comparable to acre+/properties. The PET adjusted value is 276% higher than the actual sale price. A $2.5M view adjustment lends support for not being comparable, as the ocean view is not direct. PET sale 3 is insufficiently adjusted because it is a riverfront property rather than an oceanfront. This sale would require different adjustments for WFF as oceanfront properties have a view, while riverfront properties' dock sizes/ depth of water become most important for boat/yacht owners. The PET included the guesthouse living areas of the comparables in the overall gla, which may or may not be fully supported. The SM did not have additional supporting/market area data to verify the adjustments applied this way. The PET had additional trivial adjustments for the elevator, summer kitchen, and seawall that were not fully supported. The PAO utilized the averages from the adjusted value of the comparables. The PET provided a weighted average based on adjustment percentages. The PET placed the most weight on the least comparable riverfront property. The SM calculated the PAO 4 sales as shown in their grid which returned a value of $11,607,050 after the cos. The same 4 sales with the PET values for the shared sales with the location adjustment removed from 8150 Hwy AlA and the location adjustment added to 910 Reef Rd provide an average value of $11,102,460. The subject sale with the 15% cos applied is $11,050,000. The subject sale by itself indicates a revision is warranted. The subject value prior to the hearing of $11,126,326 is higher than the best data shows, indicating a revision is warranted. In conclusion, it is the magistrate's opinion that the PAO & PET sales provided sufficient credible data to determine a supported Just value for the subject. Factoring all the evidence provided, $11,050,000 is a supported Just Value for the subject. The PET request for a value revision is approved based on the evidence presented. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2024-093: Florida Law allows the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instadmatter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner 2024-093 1 Page 3 of 4 -27- must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value, or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner overcame the Property Appraiser's established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value, or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value, which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, exists in the record for the Special Magistrate to establish a revised just value. 2024-093 -28- Page 4 of 4 The actions below were taken on your petition. ❑✓ These actions:are a recommendation only, not final ❑:These actions are .a final decision of the VAB If-you:are not satisfied after you are: notified, of the final. decision of the VAB; you.have the rightao file a lawsuit. in circuit court to furthercontest.yourassessrnent. (See. sections: 193.155(8).(1):194.036,194.171(2),194.181,196:151, and. .ou 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition'*: '2024-097 :: Parcel: ID :32393:100001014000001.0 Petitioner name RYAN: LLC :: Pro' pertyZ - 610 71 ST CI.R: The: petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address :VERO BEACH FL 329 66 representative . ❑ other ,'explain:- ...... .. :. Decision Summary: 2 Deniedyour petition ❑:Granted your petiti6n..El Granted your:petition in part :Value. Value from =_.Before:Board Action Value presented by property -appraiser After Board:.: - -' Lines .1. and 4 must be completed ... TRIM Notice : Rule: ,- F.A.C.::: . Action 1.,'Just value, required 12,296,066.00' _ 12,296,066.00 12,2961066.00 :2. Assessed or classified. use: value,* fapplicable :: 12,296066.00: :: :12,296,066.00 12,296,066:00 3.- Exempt value,* enter:"0" if none.-: 0.0.0: :: 0.00.: 0.00: 4. Taxable value,* required 12;296,066.00....: 12,296,066.00 12,296,066.00 *All values entered should be county. taxable values. School: and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.03.1(7), F.S.) : : Fill-in fields will 6z and, or:add pages as.rieeded_ Reasons for Decision:. � � . - ... ... P P 9 Findings of: Fact :(See Attacli:ed) Conclusions of Law: Pursuant to Rule.12D-9.021.; (8) of. the.Florida Adniinistrative:Code, therelief is.denied and the decision.is being issued in . Orderthat any:rlglit the petitioner may have t0:bring an action: in Circuit COUrt IS rlot:lmpaired.:: ❑✓ : Re commended: Decision :of :Special Magistrate Finding and: conclusions above arse recommendations.'. Stephen J Boyle Stephen J Boyle .02/1.1/2025... -Signature, special magistrate Print:name :Date Terri ;Collins -Lister Terni :Collins -Lister - 03/05/2025 Da Signature, VAB clerk or special representative = Print name to If this is:a:recommended decision, the boardwill Consider the recommendeddecision on at: Address If the. line above is blank, the board: does not yet know the date, time, and place When the -recommended. decision will be considered:To find the information, please call 772-226-1432: or visit our websiteat //vab.indian-river.org/Axia202 ❑.Final Decis.lon of the Value.Adjustment Board :signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision:: Signature, VAR clerk or representative: ::Print name:::: Date mailed to:parties:: Page i :of 2 DR 485V ....DECISI.O:N OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD R. 11/23- :. _ ule12D1002FA.Z.VALUE PETITION Eff. 11/3 .. :Indian River .:County:::77 fLORIDA, The:actions below weretaken"on your petition. ❑✓ These actions,are' a recommendation: only, not final ❑:These actions area final decision of the VAB If.you:are not satisfied.aftergou are notif1ed. of the .final decision of the NAB you.have the rig ht:to file a.lawsuit. :. in circuit court to furthercontest.your assessment. (Seeaections 193.155(8).(1);:194.036,194.171(2),194.181,196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) . :_ ' .: :Parcel. IQ :33391300000100000015.0 :Petition:#��2024-098 Petitioner name RYAN LLC Property 605 US HIGHWAY 1 ::... :.. ,The petitioner is: Eltaxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address :representative ::. . .=VERO BEACH, FL 32962 . ❑other explain:.... .... . Decision Summary 2 Deniedyour petition ❑Granted your petition:: E] Granted your:petition in part :::Value :: Value from :.Before:Board Action Value presented by propertyappraiser After Board Lines .1. and 4 must: be completed . TRIM Notice Rule 12D-9.02510 ; F.A.C.:::. Action 1. Just value, required : 3,427,739.00 3,427,739.00 3,427`,739.00 ::2. Assessed or classified use: value,*. if applicable: 3,427;739.00 ::::: ;:3,427;739.00 :3,427,739:00 3, Exempt value,* enter'. 0" if none -:0.00: - :. :0.0.0: 0.00 ;. 4 Taxabie Value,* required 3,427,739.00 .. 3,427,739.00 3,427,739.00 :*All values entered should be county. taxable.values. School: and other taxing authority values may differ:.(Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand, or:add pages as -needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) ... . Conclusions of Law: Pursuant to Rule.:12D-9.021; (8) of the.Florida Adrninistrative:Code, the. relief is.denied and the decision.is being. issued in - order:that an' *right the petitioner may have to:bring an action: in circuit:court is not:impaired.::: EI.Re'commended:Decision:of Special Magistrate :Finding and conclusions.above are recommendations. -Stephen J- Boyle Stephen J Boyle .02/1`1/2025 Signature, special magistrate nnt:name Date Terri Collins -Lister : Terri :Collins -Lister : 03/05/2025 P.. e Signature, VAB clerk or special representative - Print name Date .. a :If this is:a:re'commended decision, the board: will cons'id.er the recommen.. .. ecision on at: Address If the line above is blank,: the board. _does not yet know the date, time, and place when the: recommended. decision will be considered:To find the information, please call 772-226-1432 or visit our website:at //vab.indian-river.org/Axia20e ❑.Fi.nal Decision of the Value.Adjustment Board :-Signature, chair, value :adjustment board Print name Date:of decision Signature, VARclerk or representative::::: Print name.:::: :Date mailed to:parties. 2024-098 ... Page l :of 2 - 31::- DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Indian River FLORIDA County DR -485V R. 11/23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 The actions below were taken on your petition. ❑✓ These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1),194.036,194.171(2),194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2024-100 Parcel ID 33391200000500000069.2 Petitioner name RYAN LLC Property 9TH PL 900 9 900 9 The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address representative BEACH, FL 32960 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑✓ Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented Rule 12D-9.002510 , F.A.C. property appraiser Action 1. Just value, required 2,238,779.00 2.,238,779.00 2,238,779.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 2,238,779.00 2,238,779.00 2,238,779.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 2,238,779.00 2,238,779.00 2,238,779._0. 0 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand, or add pages as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law Pursuant to Rule 12D-9.021, (8) of the Florida Administrative Code, the relief is denied and the decision is being issued in order that any right the petitioner may have to bring an action in circuit court is not impaired. ❑✓ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Stephen J Boyle Stephen J Boyle 02/11/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Terri Collins -Lister Terri Collins -Lister 03/05/2025 Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 772-226-1432 or visit our website at //vab.indian-river.org/Axia202 ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 2024-100 -33- Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact for Petition 2024-100: The petitioner, Jeffery Smith with Ryan, representing the owner, appeared at the hearing and did not agree with the Property Appraiser's valuation and did not agree to settle or withdraw the petition. The petitioner presented no evidence. Billy Auton, representing the Property Appraiser, appeared in person and presented the assessed value at the hearing. 2024-100 -34- Page 2 of 2 The actions:below were: taken on your petition. V These actions:are a recommendation: only, not final ❑ These: actions area final decision of the VAB If you:are not satisfied after you are° notified of tfie'final. decision of the VAB.°, you .have the rightao file a- lawsuit. in circuit court to further.contest.your. assessment. (See.sections 193.155(8)(I);:194.036,194.171(2),194.181,196:151, and.: . 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) . : Petition:# 2024-101 :: Parcel: 0 33391200000500000008.1 Petitioner name RYAN: LLC . . Property 1110:OLD DIXIE HWY. Al The: petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address ;V R E O BEACH FL 32960 .represe.ntative ❑ other,-explain:.... Decision Summary 0 Denied-your petition ❑_Granted your petition :El Granted your:petition in'prt ::Value. - Value from -.Before: The:actions:below were: taken on your petition. .0 These actions:are a recommendation: only, not final :❑:These actions area final decision of the VAB Ifyouu.are not satisfied.after you are notified. of the'fnal decision of the VAB, yod.have the•right.to file a.lawsuit... in :ci[cuit court to further contest.your assessment. (Seeaections 1:93.155(8).(1);:194.036,194.171(2),194.181,196:151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) .' ...:' Petition:#:2024-107 :: Parcel: I0:32392300000300000008.0 Petitioner name RYAN. LLC : = Property 5001: US HIGHWAY 1:: The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's address VERO BEACH,. FL 32967 representative :: `Elother,:explain_. Decision Summary: Denied your petition ❑: Granted your petition': ❑Granted your:petition in part :Value . Value from Before:Board Action Value presented by propertyappraiser After Board: ...: Lines .1- and 4 must be completed ... TRIM Notice .: .... Rule:12D-9.0251.0 ; F.A.C.:::.: coon 1, Just value, required 11091,062.00 - _1,091,062.00 1,091,062.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* rf applicable 1,091;062.00 1,091;062.00 1,091,062:00 3; Exempt value,* enter:"0" if none.: 0.0.0: ::.': 0.00 :.: 0.00: 4 -.:Ta -:x- able:,* required 1;091,062.00• value - 1;091,062.,00 1,091;062.00 :*All values entered should be county. taxable.values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) : .Reasons for Decision :.: � : Fill -infields will expand, or:add pages as.needed.' Findings of: Fact S:ee attached. :.Conclusions of Law:: See attached.... ❑✓.:ReCOmmended:Decision:of Special Magistrate :Finding arid: conclusionsabove are recommendations: Stephen J. Boyle - Stephen J Boyle . ; .01/1.7/2025. e Date Signature, 'special magistrate - Print:name - Ter' :Collins -Lister Terri :Collins -Lister Da Signature, VAB clerk or special representative - Print name to If this is:a:reCOmmende'd decision,. the board will consider the recommended decision on at: Address = If the Ime above is blank,: the board::does not y -e# know the date, time, and place when the recommended: decision will be considered:To find the information, please call 772-226-1432 or visit our website -at //vab.indian-riyer.org/A)�ia2O2:: Decision of the Value.Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAR clerk or representative::::: ::Print name:::: :'Date mailed to:parties:: 2024-107 Page 1;of 4 37— _ Finding :of fact hr petition number 2024-107::. List°of Property .Appra'iser's witnesses'and exhibits:; . . Billy Anton, representing the Property Appraiser's. Office; :appeared in person. on --the average sale price of $:3.70 SF : the PA: concluded at preliminary. value: : (marketvalue) for. the 11:55 acres at $33QSF or. $_1,861:,536. (A:15% deduction for the cost of sale. (COS) was not applied to the estimate of market value by'th ..... PA:to indicate a just:value.:Applying a 15%: COS adjustment to::the preliminary: value: would result in a just value of $1,582,306:.) The PA testified that, considering a. COS'deduction, the Witent. .assessmentfor the'subjectof $1.,091,062 or $2.17.SF is well below the value estimate of:$1:;861,53:6: The'PA provided. the:property` record cards. for the subject and the comparable sales along with the location map'showing that three: of the:sales were loedted along. US Hwy 1: and I :of.the sales;was located just west of -US Highway 1: off of 41st: Street., Summary of evidence presented by:the petitioner:::: The::petitioner requested a. Just:Value of $736,3°12 or.$l,A6 SF.($63,7.50.per acre).: at the beginning of the testimony. The petitioner presented 5. comparable° sales.from CoStar: The.cornparable sales.:: sold between $45;208 per acre to $157,368 per: acre or between:$1.04:SF to $3'.6:1 SF. The sales ranged in :size from'9.91 acres to 37 acres: The comparable sales were zoned a variety of different zonings. The. different zonings: included IG- Industrial:General; RS -3 a:residential'zoning a combination of both Commercial: and Multifamily; zonings;: CG General Commercial and a:combihatiion of :CH - Commercial Heavy- Arid CL- Commercial Light. (Ii is noted that::Sale- 5 -at $3.61- SF was: the PA's Sale =2. It is also noted that Sale: A, at $1.97 SF, was an auction sale:: and resold just over one. year later_ for $3:65 SF; the PA's: Sale 1.) There was rib discussion of the sales iii the. evidence: submitted.-- he petitioner: estifiedahat the:subject property was botli:irregular in shape and was transacted by US .Hwy 1. As a result, it is not two contiguous parcels..: In addition, there is a.. - parcel cut: out of the back.of the west side property., This resulted in physical and :functional issues: for the developriient of the subject property, including issues with . the setbacks :(legal issues). (The petitioner did riot provide a tax inap or. survey. demonstrating the shapes ,of the subject parcels. The petitioner did not value the :property as two -separate parcels:) :..:. Re uttal Testimony: ThePA testified that -the parcel may have some setback'issues. However; the west side parcel is approximately five acres and.is a substantial piece (of adequate.,size) .Z. 2024-107::.: ..... ... ... .... ' Page 3 -of 4 ..39- . . . . . . . . . . . and not all of theisgues the. b6titioild.discussed woUld:not impact the. parcel. The. . PA testified that the petitioner's:Sale 1: is: 1 o'cated on 45th Street approximately 1.5 west . of "US Highway not . in a a location, S910'2, located off of . 044y J and, is. .... good. Dock Rd, is: going :tObe deVelopedWith residential uses and Sale 3 is a:mixture of commercial and-residential zoning. ThePA also testified -that the p-efitioner'.s:: Sale 4. (P.A"s* Sale: 1)' resold for.substaritiallyinore aveaf later'.' The petifionet had noxebuttaL ;90eieiial magistrate's analysis andfini ding: 6f.facts'i: .. .... The:presumpti6h.of correctness fdr the assessment* was :established because the PA n anc­ ce. proved by the prep6 der e.:bf th*e. evident' ' :that the PA's just value 41i6thodo'logy compiled with the eight:p-niterig of Section :193.0:1:1.:of the Florida:Swtuteg an professionally accepted appraisal-practices'.. The petitioner's evidence did not ... . overcome the presu-m'ptio,'n:of:correct'*n'ess. p e- d. Thex'omparable sales presented by the PA were''a'p' licable''for. th' analysis an pr s viluationvbf :the s6i e-'ct prbip'Orty. The: comparable s,ales: presented by the'. PA were based on the recorded sale price.: After 1he:establishment :of a preliminary Value, the _PA did.n6t make. aI5% COS deducIlOn and provide an mdic. 6tion-ofjust val4 6. owever,,.,qpplyinga: 15%:COS deduction does provide a just value that:,supports: :the current assessed value. Conclusions of law . for petition 2024=107 dible: t h: The:admitted "evidence" determined s,u fficiently'' relevant an d .1 cre o re,ac the preponderance Of the evidence: standard: of proof;: Rule 12.D=9.025atid 12D-: 9.027.4 -he admitted evidence provides byapreponderance: 'of the: evidenc ethat the property appyalser's just aluafion thodology complies with section .193.011, F. S:.: and professionally accepted appraisal practices.: Therefore; the petition is: ::denied-.-'. 3 The:actions:below were taken ori _your petition. ✓ These actions:are a recommendation only, not .final ❑:These: actions are .a finaldecision of the VAB .: . If.you:bre not satisfied. after you are notified of the .final. decision of the VAB,'you.have*the'right:to file a.lawsuit.. . incircuitcourtto further your assessment. (See: sections 193.155(8)(I)J94.036,194.171(2),194.181,196:151, and. 1:97.2425, Florida Statutes.) . ...:° Petition#_2024-168:::2024-108 :: Parcel: ID32392300000300000009.0 ::::: Petitioner name RYAN. LLC _ ::.: Property US HIGHWAY:1 The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayers address representative VERO BEACH, FL -32967 . ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary: Denied -your petition ❑Granted your petition ::❑ Granted your:petition in pait Value. =::` :: Value from :.BeforeBoard Action .:After Board:: `Lines 1 -and 4 mustcompleted ..... ..... Value presented by property appraiser TRIM N - ` ...of -ice Rule:121)-9.02510 ; F.A.C.:::. ction 1. Just value, required = 34,212.00 34,212.00 34;212.0.0 :2. -Assessed or classified use: value,*. if applicable ::, 3:4212.00 :::: 34;21:2.00 34,2.12.00 & Exempt value,* enter -"b" if none.: :. 0.0.0 0.00 a 0.00: 4. Tax' able -via lue,* required 34,212.00... :° 34,212.00 -34,212.00 - :*All values entered should be county. taxable.values. School: and other taxing authority values may differ:.(Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision :.: ::.: ::::: Fill-in fields will expand, or:add pages as.needed. Findings of: Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Lavin. Pursuant to Rule -12D-9.021.; (8) of. the. Flori da Ad ministrative:Cod0, the. relief is.denied and the decision. is being issued in . orderthat any:right the petitioner may have to:bring an action in circtiif court is not_impaire'd.::: Z: of Special. Magistrate :Finding and: cohdusioris.above are recommendations. Stephen J Boyle Stephen J Boyle 02/25/2025- - -Signature, special magistrate Print:name Date Terri Collins -Lister Terri :Collins -Lister. 03/05/2025 Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name ... sw... Date If this is:a;recomme-nded decisiorr the board will consider the recommended:decision on . at:. Address If theline above is blank,: the board `does not. know the date, time and place when the recommended. decision will be considered::To find the information, please call 772-226-1432 or visit our websiteat //vab.indian-river.org/Axia202' ❑.Final Decision of the Value. Adjustment Board ... :-Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision:: . Signature, VAB: clerk or representative::::: ::Print name: Date mailed to;parties :: :... Page l ;of 2 -41- The:actions:below were taken on :your petition. - 0 These actions:are a recommendation only, not final ❑_These actions area final'decision of th' VAB .: lf. ou:are not satisfied after ou are notified of the decision of the VAB- you .have the right to file a lawsuit . . in circuit court to further cont st,your assessment. (Seeaections 1:93.155(8)(1);:194.036,194;171(2),194.181,196.151, and . 97.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition:# :2024-113 :' Parcel: ID:33380:100001007000001.1 Petitioner name RYAN, LLC Property UNASSIGNED:: The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 9taxpayers address .. representative VERO BEACH, FL 329 66 ❑ other,explain: : Decision Summary ❑✓: Denied-your petition ❑Granted your petition_:❑ Granted your=petition in part Value from Before:Board Action After Board :Value. .::Lines .1. and 4 must' be com leted . p Value resented 6property' a ra er TRIM Notice .:° wal p y ;F . �s Rule:12D-9.02510 ; F.A.C.. Action 1.-Just value, required 4;182,279.00 4,182,279.00 4,782,279.00'` 2. Assessed or classified use.value,* lf:applicable .. 4,182,279.00 4,182,279.00 4,182,279.:00 3 Exempt value,* enter "Q" if none-: 0.0.0: : _ :. 0.001'. 0.00: 4. Taxable value,* required 4,182,279 00 .. 4,182,279.00 4,182,279.00' *All values'entered should be county. taxable,values. School and other taxing authority values may differ..(Section 196.039 (7), F.S:) Reasolis for Decision :.: ::.: - Fill-in fields will expand, or:add pages as.needed: Findings of: Fact _ :.. :... . (See Attached) :.Conclusions of Law Pursuant to Rule. I2D-9.021; (8) of. the. Florida Administrative: Code, the. relief is.denied and the decision. is being. issued in . ordeiahat any_right the petitioner may have to bring an action. in circuit court is riot 'i.mpaired.: ❑✓ :Recommended Decision `of SpeciaL'Magistrate .Finding and conclusions.above are recommendations: Stephen J. Boyle :: Stephen J Boyle 02/11/2025 ;-Signature, special magistrate Print:name .- Date Terri Collins-Lister n Collins-Lister 03/24/2025 Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date _ ...- :If this is:a.recommen.ded decision, the boardmill consider the recommended-decision on at Address... :' - - - .: .... If the line above is. blank, the board. does not yet know the date, time, and place when the. recommended: decision will be .: considered:To find the information, please call 772-226-1432 .or visit our website'at [/vab.indian-nver.org/Axia202 ❑.FinallDeclislion of the Value.Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board .: Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB. clerk or representative::::: :Print name::::: Date mailed tQ;parties : Page l of 2 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD ffi VALUE PETITION Indian River County FLORIDA DR -485V R. 11/23 Rule 12D-16:002 F.A.C. Eff.11/23 The actions below were taken on your petition. © These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036,194.171(2),194.181, 196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2024-115 Parcel ID 31391500022063000003.0 Petitioner name STEPHEN BOYLE Property 10610 SAVANNAH DR The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's address representative VERO BEACH, FL 32963 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition Q Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F. C. Action 1. Just value, required 9,076,898.00 9,076,898.00 6,250,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 7,137,715.00 7,137,715.00 6,250,000.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 4. Taxable value,* required 7,087,715.00 7,087,715.00 6,200,000.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand, or add pages as needed. Findings of Fact (See Attached) Conclusions of Law (See Attached) ❑✓ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Douglas Lawson Douglas Lawson 03/25/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Terri Collins -Lister Terri Collins -Lister 03/25/2025 Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 772-226-1432 '' or visit our website at //vab.indian-river.org/Axia202 ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Si nature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 2024-115 -45= Page 1 of 4 Findings of Fact for Petition 2024-115: Axia includes the Petition, Agent Authorization, Record Card and Hearing Notice List of Property Appraiser's witnesses and Exhibits: The Property Appraiser's Office (PA) was represented at the Hearing by Robert Tayler and Kevin Kinel. PA submitted multiple evidence documents, which include several key documents: Information Request Letter, Exchange of evidence 12D-9.020, Methodology and Considerations by the Property Appraiser, Factors to consider in deriving just valuation 193.011, Comparable Sales Report, Comparable Sales Map(s), Aerial Imagery, Property Record Card for the Subject, Property Record Cards for all Comparable properties, Case Law, Copy of Value Adjustment Board Withdrawal of Petition form, and Copy of Petition filed with the Value Adjustment Board. The assessed just/market value of the property is $9,076,898. List of Petitioner's witnesses and Exhibits: . The Petitioner was represented at the Hearing by the owner's Agent; Stephen Boyle. The Petitioner submitted two evidence documents, which includes a market value appraisal, property summary, photos, and an analysis of comparable sales. Overview of the Subject Property: The subject property is a single-family residence (SFR) situated at 10610 Savannah Drive in the Windsor community in Vero Beach. The parcel number is 31-39-15-00022-0630-00003.0. According to the property record, the'SFR, built in 2014, has 4,464 square feet (sq ft) of living space and sits on a 0.59 -acre golf course lot. Construction quality is excellent and the Georgian -style home features six bedrooms, four bathrooms, two half baths, central air conditioning, a 2,512 square foot (sf) guest house, pool, courtyard/veranda, and,'a three -car garage. PA indicates the home is in very good condition. The home includes wood and tile flooring, custom cabinetry, good quality appliances, millwork and fixtures. The property was recently combined with the adjacent lot that includes a guest house, and now one lot. The current market value is $9,076,898. ; Summary of Evidence presented by the Property Appraiser: PA evidence includes general information about valuation of properties in Indian River County, including mass appraisal statements, assumptions, and support for the cost of sale. PA has the Presumption of Correctness. Property card is included along with an aerial photo. Mr. Taylor reviews the Property Appraiser's evidence packages and discusses property. The three comparable sales within or near the subject's neighborhood, sold between June 2023 and April 2024. These comparables indicate a sale price range of $6,600,000 to $8,750,000. Mr. Kinel discusses the sales, market adjustments and the Cost of sale adjustment. All the comps have similar golf course views with adjustments made based on price per front foot differences. The land value was based on 5% of the overall value of the site. According to the PA, each front foot (FF) is adjusted 5% of the overall value, so the difference of nine feet at 5% each is 45%. For Sale 1, a nine -foot difference was adjusted $114,750, which equates to $12,750 per FF. The adjustment to Sale 2 equates to $17,979 per FF and the adjustment applied to Sale 3 is $20,323. The MLS was used to support condition adjustments. The adjustment for age difference was equates to $21,000 per year on comp 1 and $29,684 for Sale 2. PA states the adjustment is actually based on the difference in the depreciated improvement value. LA and guest house size differences are adjusted at $600 per sf. Sale 3 is superior in quality and adjusted downward at $150 per sf. After adjustments, the sales indicated a value range of $6,372,596 to $7,482,875 and average $7,057,797. The Adjusted Price per sqft for Comparable #1 is $1,023 per sqft of living area, Comparable #2 is $803 per sqft of living area and Comparable #3 is $1,168 per sqft. The subject's Market /Just value is currently on the tax roll at a rate of $1,294 per sqft of living area. After reviewing the comparables that are provided, PA concludes the Market/Just Value of the subject property appears high and an adjustment is appropriate. PA states the data supports a value of about $7,057,000. Summary of Evidence presented by the Petitioner: The Petitioner presented two evidence packages, including a market value appraisal, property information and comparable data. Mr. Boyle discusses their appraisal that concludes at a Market Value of $7,000,000. The report includes the statement: Our sketch calculated 4,360 sqft of living area in the main residence and 2,512 sqft of living area in the detached guest quarters, for a total of 6,872 sqft of living area. The county appraiser calculated 4,464 sqft of 2024-115 Page 2 of 4 -46- living area in the main residence and 2,550 sgft of living area in the detached guest quarters, for a total of 7,014 sqft. A cost approach was performed that estimates the land value at $2,500,000 and the value indication is $6,929,600. There are three of the comparable sales used by the Petitioner that match the PA sales data. Comp 2 was included in the analysis. It sold in July 2024 for $6,725,000. Mr. Boyle indicates they looked at land value differently. Sale 4 is the only comp adjusted for land value. The Petitioner's appraiser did not adjust Sales 1-3 the sales for quality and Sale 4 was adjusted downward $1,600,000. Living area is adjusted at $600 per sf and guest house at $350 per sf, lower due to interior fmishes/quality. When analyzing the price per square foot this market is willing to pay for total living area there is a relatively narrow range (not including comparable 4 which is considered superior due to. its unique and higher end features of the home) the range is from $960 - $1,180 psf. After adjustments the 4 sales indicate a range of values from $6,369,160 to $7,486,000. Most consideration is given to comparable 1 for having the most similar site size and location with equal consideration to comparables 2 and 3 for being newer built and including recent renovations. Comparable 4 is included as support but is not considered in their overall value estimate due to its unique features. As a result, the Petitioner's appraisers conclude at a retrospective market value opinion of $7,000,000. This would be reduced 15% for Cost of Sale to $5,950,000 for an estimated Just Value. Additional evidence includes a detailed summary of other sales in the Windsor area between 2022 and 2024. The data is analyzed on a price per square foot basis and shows the subject assessment exceeding most of the market indications. Rebuttal Testimony: Mr. Taylor (Property Appraiser) refers the Petitioners appraisal at $7,000,000 and the indicated Just Value of $5,950,000 compared to similar Windsor sale prices of $6,800,000 to $8,700,000. The revised PA estimate of $7,057,000 was mentioned. PA reviewed differences in the sale adjustments, primarily for land value and depreciation (age/condition). Mr. Kinel emphasizes the value difference in site size and depreciation is appropriate and supported by CAMA data. The other main difference is the guest house size adjustment at $600 psf vs $350 used by the Petitioner's Appraiser. Mr. Boyle refers to the PA value estimate of $7,057,000, which indicates a Market Value of $8;303,000 which equates to '$1,208 psf of gross living area. He then calculates value of $1,908 for the main house living area. Sale 1 sold for $1,216 psf, Sale 2 at $1,369 psf, $1,393 psf and Sale 4 at $1,565. He emphasizes the assessed value is above the data. Additional discussion is provided on the Comps and he refers to listing info on PA sale 2 (Petitioner's Sale 3) which ji shows a renovation in 2021 and infers the PA adjustment to this comp is high. Special Magistrate's analysis and Finding of Facts: The PAO presented evidence to support the market value. The Property Appraiser has included a sales comparison approach and applied adjustments to the sales compared to the subject. PA offers a revised Just Value of $7,057,000, which is the average of the adjusted sale prices of their comps. After both parties were given the opportunity to be heard, the special magistrate finds that property appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with section 193.011, F.S., and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment. The Petitioner provided a Market Value appraisal based on their interior inspection, and the resulting value is $7,000,000. A 15% adjustment for cost of sale indicates $5,950,000. The value difference results from different viewpoints on whether to apply an adjustment or how much. The Petitioner's appraiser did not adjust for site size or condition. PA emphasizes that an adjustment for land value/site size and depreciation is appropriate and reasonable. The other main difference is the guest house size adjustment at $600 per sf vs $350 used by the Petitioner's Appraiser. The comparable guest houses vary in size up to 2,832 SF, which has an impact on value. The Magistrate noted some minor differences in the area used for living area and guest houses of the subject and one comp. The land value adjustment and condition adjustment used by the PA appears reasonable. However, the Magistrate has considered the listing info on PA sale 2 (Petitioner's Sale 3) which shows a renovation in 2021. The condition adjustment to this comp appears high, but it would be appropriate for the Petitioner to apply some adjustment to this sale. It would also be appropriate to use a lower adjustment factor for the guest house based on photographs and descriptions. The Magistrate also would follow the standard order of adjustment and apply the 15% 2024-115 -47- Page 3 of 4 cost of sale adjustment after all other adjustments. All evidence was admissible, and all evidence from the PAO and representative for the Petitioner was admitted without objection. As a result of considerable review of many variables that result in a large spread in value opinions, the Magistrate has applied revised adjustments to the sales for item discussed in the preceding paragraph. The price per SF of the comps was also considered. Based on this review I have estimated a Just Value of $6,250,000. This convers to a reasonable and supportable market value of about $7,350,000, which is within the range of the four comparable sales at $6,600,000 to $8,750,000. The Petitioner has overcome the presumption of correctness established at the hearing by the property appraiser. Petitioner did prove by a preponderance that property appraiser's valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the property appraiser to comparable property in Indian River County. Granted by Special Magistrate at Hearing & after Tax Roll. Magistrate recommends a Revised Just Value of $6,250,000. f Conclusions of Law for Petition 2024-115: Florida Law allows the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness. For the Property Appraiser to establish a presumption of correctness for the assessment, the admitted evidence must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. In the instant matter, the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness for the assessment because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the Property Appraiser's just valuation methodology complies with Section 193.011, Florida Statutes and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Since the Property Appraiser established a presumption of correctness, the Petitioner must overcome the established presumption of correctness by proving that the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) -the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. In the instant matter, the Petitioner overcame the Property Appraiser's established presumption of correctness because the admitted evidence proves by a preponderance of the evidence that (a) the Property Appraiser's just valuation does not represent just value; or (b) the Property Appraiser's just valuation is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the Property Appraiser to comparable property within the same county. Further, competent substantial evidence of just value which cumulatively meets the criteria of Section 193.011, Florida Statutes, and professionally accepted appraisal practices exists in the record for Special Magistrate to establish a revised just value. 2024-115 -48- Page 4 of 4 The:actions below were: taken on :your petition. These actions:are a recommendation only,: not final ❑These actions area final'decision of the VAB If.you are hot satisfied after you are: notified. of'the"final decision of the VAB, you.have the'rightJ6 file a.lawsuit.. . incircuitcourt to further�contest.your assessorent. (See.sections�193.155(8)(I)-:a94.036,194.171(2),194.181,196:151, and.: 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition #2024-1:19 :: Parcel:ID:32403200006020000009.1 ::::: Petitioner name FIRSTPOINTE ADVISORS.: LLC Property 3384: OCEAN: DR The: petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record taxpayer's address representative :VERO BEACH, FL 32963 ...... ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary: ❑✓ Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition = ❑ Granted your:petition in part Value. Value from .Before:Board Action After Board::: - Lines .1 and 4 must be completed .. - -: TRIM Notice . Value presented by property appraiser Rule.1.2D-9.0251.0 F:A.C.:::. Action 1..`Just value, required " 7,261,250.00 71261,250.00 7,261,250.Oo 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable Assessed .- ... 7,261,250.00 :: 7,261,250.00 ::7,261,250:00 3; Exempt value,* enter:"Q" if none.`: ; ::.: ::.: :0.00: :.: 0.00 :.: 0.00: 4. Taxable -value,* required 7;261,250.00....: :7;261,250.,00 7,261;250.00 :*All values entered should be county: taxable.values. School: and other taxing authority values may differ.,.(Section 196.031(7), F.S.) ::: Reasons for Decision'. ::: ::: Fill-in fields will expand, or:add pages as.needed. Findings of: Fact (See Attached) :Conclusions of Law:: Pursuant to Rule.:12D-9.021,_ (8) of the -.Florida Administrative:Code, the. relief is.denied and the decision.is being. issued in . order that any:right the petitioner may:have to bring an action_ in circuit:court is not: impaired.:::; 21;R@COmrnel dded:Decision:of Special Magistrate :Finding arid: conclusions above are recommendations: Stephen J_ Boyle Stephen J Boyle, . .02/1.1/2025 :-Signature, special magistrate : Print:nanie :... ::Date Terri :Collins -Lister Terri .:Collins -Lister : 03/06/2025 Dat Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name ... e If this is:a reCOmmend.ed decision, the bga.rd will consicler the recommended decision on at: Address - If the line above is blank,: the board::does not yet know the date, time, and place when the: recommended. decision will be Go find the information, please call 772-226-1432: or visit our websiteat //vab.indian-river.org/Axia20a' ❑-Final Decision of the Value.. ' ustment Board :: Signature, chair, value :adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB: clerk or representative::::.: ::Print name.:::: Date mailed to:parties :: 2024-119 Page !:of 2 =49- The_actions below were taken on :your petition. q. ❑✓ These actions are a recommendatioft only, not final D_These, actions are a finaldecision of the VAB If.you.are not satisfied after you ,are: notified. of the .final. decision of the VAB; you .have the right to file a lawsuit. in:ci[cuit court to furthercontest-your assessment. (See:sections 1:93.155(8)_(1);.194.036,194.171(2),;194.181,196.151, and: 1.97.2425, Florida Statutes.) .... ..... ....:' :Petition:#2024-132,:: : Parcel:ID.33391000009001000003.0, ::::: Petitioner name MILICEVIC MICHAEL A (CO -TRS) Property 1560 32ND:AVE The: petitioner is: RI taxpayer of record 0 taxpayer's address .. representative .:VE RO BEACH FL.32960 D other, explain: Decision S-ummary` (] Denied your petition ❑Granted your petit: ion =:❑✓ Granted your:petition in part :::Value :: Value from :.Before:Board Action Board:: . Lines .1. and 4 must' be completed .... TRIM Notice .. Value presented by property appraiser 11& 12D-9.02510 , F.A.C.::: . Action . 1., Just value, required 324,031.00" - -324,031.00 290-,000.00 2. Assessed or classified use: value,* if:applicable ::: 322;671.00 ;:::: 322,67:1:00 290,000:00 1 Exempt value,* enter:°0" if. none- :.:. 0.0.0. 0.00 ::. 0.00: 4: Taxable.walue,* required "322,671.00 . - - - ° 322,67100 290,000.00 *All valuesentered should be county: taxable.values. School: and other taxing authority values may differ. jSection 196.031(7), F.S.) :: Reasons for Decision:.'': :::. :::.: Fill -in -fields will expand, or aidd pages as.needed: Findings of: Fact :(see Attached) Conclusions of Law (See. Attached) .: �✓ :Recommended:Decision:of Special'Magistrate :Finding arid conclusioris.above are recommendations: Stephen.Neill -:`Stephen Neill 03/28/2025 ` -Signature, special magistrate Print:name .:Date Terri Collins -Lister Terri :Collins -Lister ..... 03/31/2025 - ... . Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name .... Date . If this is:a:recommended decision; the board:will consider the recommended:decision on at; Address .... ' ....:....: If the -line above is blank,: the board: does not yet know the date, time, and place when the: recommended. decision will be consideeed: To find the information, please call 772-226-1432: or visit our website at //yab.indian-river.org/Axia20� D.Fi-nal' Decisionof the'Value.Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision.: Signature, VAR clerk or.representative::::. ::Print name.:::: : Date mailed to:parties:: 2024-132 . :.: :.: Page 1 of 3 51` Findings;of Fact -for Petition 2024-132: List of Property Appraiser EAibits[W- finesses: * George Clarke representing the Property -Appraisers Office (PAO) . * Kevin Kinel representing the property Appraisers Office (PAO) Summary, PTO- Bulletin; 8 Criteria, Case Law. Sales CoinparisonApproach: . " = * Summary of Assessments & Supporting Data - Maps, Property Cards; _Sketches List of Petitioners Exhibits/Witnesses:- - * Petitioner — Ms: April Mili:e.vic * Verbal Testimony * Comparable Sales, Comparable.Assessments Summary;of Eviderice presented by the Property: Appraiser*: -.The Subject Vroperty is a single: family residence located at 1560::32nd Avenue, Vero;Beach; FL; The property is : located -in -Vero Park:and is 68 years oU The property is renovated. The PAO concluded ata living"area size of:1,145 square:feet. This:size was agreed upon'by the petitioner. There was a: discrepancy as the: PAO card had a smaller size, but the carport area has been converted. This -was supported by MLS information The property was last purchased by the petitioner -in May of 2022 for $348,000. The PAO provided a summary of comparablesales. The three comparable sales indicated a range from: $223,000 to $3.0:0;000, or $292 to'$363 per square foot:before adjustments: The PAO;adjusted-for:Cost of Sale, Site Size, Bathroom :. County; and Living Area on a lump sum basis,. which is typical real estate appraisal practice for single-family. residenii 'l appraisals. The adjusted sales: indicated:a range:from $289:050 to:$297,850, The "PAO then provided: aper square foot analysis of: $290 to $47.0 per square foot based on the: adjusted sale prfces:'and concluded at $283 -per square foot or $324,031 The PAO also presented verbal testimony to indicate that the petitioner's, valuation is still within the range of typical assessmentsaoaale ratios:for the: market. The:PAO also`. indicated that the assessment; last year was 84% '.of the sale:: price.... . Summary of Evidence -presented bythe Petitioner: - - The petitioners main concern was the fact that their assessment is currently 93% of their purchase price and comparables are :64°l° to 85%.:The petitioner presented 9 comparables: to support this. Thepetitioner.also indicated that Comparables 4 and 7 were most: comparable to the"Subject Property. These two properties sold for $260,000 and $325;000 before any adjustments: The petitioner is requesting a:value of $261,000or: 75% of the purchase price: in .2022..... All documents submitted :by the PAO and the ' etitioner were admissible and admitted into evidence without objection. Magistrates Analysis and Findings of Facts: The petitioner provided support foraheir valuation by primarily using comparable assessments There were no typical appraisal adjustments: by_the:petitionet..The petitioners concluded:value of $261,000 appears to be -at om of the -range based on a per square foot basis. In addition relying on using a percentage of sthe bott ale/assessment analysis is : not typical appraisal:practice:; :especially in this ;case where:there is:an :abundance of data: The PAO conclusion of.$324,031 ` S overstated based on the analysis provided at the -Bearing: Tlie PAO:used typical appraisal methodology doing lump sum adjustments (especially for living area adjustment) and then concluded above the range -of the adjusted sales by essentially adjusting for living area -twice. The:living.area was adjusted twice when.:: the PAO took the concluded range of the comparables ($289,050 to $297,850) and then used a price per: square foot: analysis fora) eir conclusion of $324,031..Th s is incorrect appraisal methodology;: and the PAO- conclusion should be within the original range of $289,050: to $297,850.: . Based on the evidence presented - .2024 , the best evidencepresented supports a value of $290,000: This is essential) the PAO .. 2024-132:: Page 2 of 3 5 FLORIDA DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Indian River County DR -485V R. 11/23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 The actions below were taken on your petition. P/1 These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB. If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you .have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See -sections 193.155(8)(1),194.036,194.171(2),194.181,196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2024-140 Parcel ID 31392100010000000006.0 Petitioner name BORAS ROBERT M AND SUZANNE B Property_ 9530 RIVERSIDE DR The petitioner is,-✓❑ taxpayer of record ❑ taxpayer's address Address SEBASTIAN, ASTIAN, FL 32958 ❑other, explain: time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 772-226-1432 or visit our website at //vab.indian-river.o'rg/Axia20. Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition [0 Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiserRule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. Action 1. Just value, required 320,138.00 320,138.00 232,540.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 206,047.00 206,047.00 206,047.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 206,047.00 206,047.00 206,047.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values_may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand, or add pages as needed. Findings of Fact See attached. Conclusions of Law See attached, Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Stephen J Boyle Stephen J Boyle 03/12/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Terri Collins -Lister Terri Collins -Lister 03/24/2025 Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 772-226-1432 or visit our website at //vab.indian-river.o'rg/Axia20. El Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 2024-140 -54- Page 1 of 7 Finding of fact for petition number 2024-140 List of Property Appraiser's witnesses and exhibits: Nancy Neill, representing the Property Appraiser's Office, appeared in person. The evidence submitted by the Property Appraiser (PA) included several exhibits. Submitted into Axia included the following, a chart summarizing the subject and four comparable sales, the assessment history of the subject property, an aerial showing the subject property and the ten other single family riverfront patio lots, and aerial of the neighborhood, a (fraudulent) MLS listing of the subject property, the MLS listing of Sale 1 and a summary of condominium sales within the Pelican Point development. The following information was entered into evidence at the hearing. The property card for the subject, the property card for Sale 1, the property card and permit history for Sale 2, the property card and permit history for Sale 3 and the property card and permit history for Sale 4. This evidence was admitted in to evidence, without objection, at the hearing. List of Petitioner's witnesses and exhibits: Robert Boras and Suzanne Warn, the property owners, appeared in person. The petitioner submitted in to Axia a 3 page letter explaining the issues with the lot. At the hearing the petitioner submitted the PA's sales chart with notes on it, a survey of the subject property and the architectural criteria for Pelican Point of. Sebastian Phase 2 (the subject subdivision of 11 lots). This evidence was admitted in to evidence, without objection, at the hearing. Overview of the Subject Property: The subject property is a vacant riverfront single-family patio lot (zero lot line) located at 9530 Riverside Dr in Sebastian, FL. The lot has 44 FF on the Indian River and is 7,405 SF. The lot is located on the curve of the single street that provides access to the 11 lots in this subdivision. As a result, the southern property line of the subject has a depth of approximately 181 feet. The northern property line has a depth of approximately 151 feet. Due to the curve in the road and the setback requirements, the usable area of the lot is reduced to approximately 6,644 SF. The buildable area of the lot is even smaller. 2024-140 Page 1 -55- Page 2 of 7 Summary of evidence presented by the property appraiser: The PA established the just value for the property at $320,138 or $43.23 SF. The PA presented four (4) comparable sales. Sales 1 and 4 were sales of vacant lots within the subject's subdivision. Sale 1 sold February 2023 for $535,000. The lot contained 66 FF and had a usable area of 10,019 SF. The purchase price was adjusted 15% for the cost of sale (COS) and indicated a just value per FF of $7,984 and $45 SF of usable area. Sale 4 sold March 2019 for $215,000. This lot had 45 FF and 8,712 SF of usable area. After adjusting for the COS, this lot indicated $2,816 FF and $21 SF of usable area. (No time adjustment was applied to Sale 4.) Sales 2 and 3 were single family residences in the subject's subdivision. These sales were utilized due to the lack of vacant land sales within the subdivision. Sale 2 sold April 2023 for $1,020,000. The lot has 66 FF and 11,326 SF of usable area. The home is 2,784 SF of AC area. The PA assigned the improvements a value of $503,306 ($1.80 SF) which indicated a land residual of $516,694. After adjusting the land residual for the 15% COS, the sale indicated a residual land value of $7,160 FF and $39 SF of usable area. (It is noted that a review of the property record card indicated -that the value assigned to the improvements was based on the estimate of cost new of $623,267, less depreciation of 12% to $548,474 and then adjusted downward by 78% (no explanation for the 78% factor) to $427,810 and then divided by the 1 -COS (.85) to arrive at the improvement value of $503,306. This indicated a value that was below the cost new and the depreciated value and lessened the reliability of the indicated improvement value.) Sale 3 sold October 2021 for $870,000. The lots has 67 FF and 13,504 SF of usable area. The home is 3,120 SF of AC area. The PA assigned the improvements a value of $581,179 ($186 SF) which indicated a land residual of $288,821. After adjusting the land residual for the 15% COS, the sale indicated $3,655 FF and $18 SF of usable area. (The same issue regarding improvement value is noted. Also, there was no time adjustment applied to this sale.) The PA concluded at a market (just) value for the subject property of $320,138 or $43.23 SF based on 7,405 SF of total site area or $7,276 FF (chart shows $7,990 FF). 2024-140 Page 2 -56- Page 3 of 7 The PA presented the history of the subject's assessed value starting back from 2001 and going through 2024. It is noted that the assessed value in 2023 was $187,314 and was increased in 2024 to $320,138. (The increase appears to be based solely on the February 2023 sale of comparable Sale 1.) The PA also presented a summary of condominium sales between 2016 and 2023. The chart indicated the total sales volume, the number of sales, the average sale price of the condominium units and a percent increase from one year to another. The PA testified that the information was provided to show the increase in value over the time frame. (However, no time adjustment was applied to the comparable sales used by the PA.) Summary of evidence presented by the petitioner: The petitioner did not request a market (just) value for the property. The petitioner testified that the value of the" lot is (based on) what you can build on it and that they overpaid for the lot in 2006. The petitioner testified that the recent increase in the assessed value (from $187,315 to $320,13 8) was a 71 % increase. The petitioner testified that while looking for comparable listings and sales for the hearing, they discovered that the lot was listed with Coldwell Banker and was done without their knowledge. They noted that according to the agent with Coldwell Banker, that was listed on the MLS sheet, the listing was done electronically. i The petitioner presented the survey and the -architectural criteria for building in their subdivision. The petitioner noted that the usable depth of the lot is only approximately 151 feet. As a result, the buildable area is much smaller. They noted that the minimum square footage requirements,' including the two car garage, would require the construction of a two story house, due to the size of the lot (width and length) along with the irregular shape. The petitioner noted that the PA's Sale 1 was a much more developable lot due to the 66 FF. The petitioner presented an analysis of the buildable footprint of each lot which takes into account all of the setback requirements. The petitioner indicated that the buildable footprint for their lot was 1,979 SF and the buildable footprint for the PA's 4 sales ranged from 4,131 SF to.7,239 SF. The petitioner noted that the PA's Sale 2 is a two story house and would cost more than $180 SF to build and using $180 SF resulted in a higher land value. Sale 4 would be similar to what they would have to build and the owner paid over $300 Page 3 2024-140 Page 4 of 7 -57- SF to build the house. The petitioner concluded their testimony by stating that the usable (buildable) size of the lot is the main impact on value and the list of the property should not be considered in the analysis. Rebuttal Testimony: The PA testified that the lot is still buildable and that values have increased since 2019. The petitioner stated that the (current) market is now dead. No other new evidence was presented by either party that wasn't discussed during the presentation of evidence. Special magistrate's analysis and finding of facts: The petitioner provided a survey of the lot along with the architectural criteria for the 11 lot subdivision. This information supported the issues with the usable area of the lot. The valuation of the subject property is problematic due to the fact that there are only 4 vacant lots left in the subdivision with the other 7 lots developed with single family residents. The most recent sales of the vacant lots were the February 2023 sale for $535,000 and the March 2019 sale for $215,000. The sale for $535,000 was for a rectangular shaped lot with 66 FF and approximately 10,019 SF of lot area that sold for $45 SF. The sale for $215,000 was for a 45 FF lot with approximately 8,712 SF of lot area that sold for $21 SF. The other two comparable were improved with single family homes with approximately 66 FF and lot areas between 11,326 SF to 13;504 SF. All of the comparable sales were rectangular in shape and with the exception of the 2019 sale, had at least 66 FF. Because the PA presented two comparable sales that were improved, the PA used a land residual analysis to indicate the value of the lot at the time of sale. Sale 2 sold in April 2023 for $1,020,000. The house was built in 2001 and includes a pool. The PA utilized a value for the improvements of $180 SF or $503,306. This indicated a lot residual of $516,694. The building permit for the property indicated thatthe cost new of the improvements in 2001 was $917,946 or $330 SF. A review of the building card indicated that the cost new is estimated at $623,267 or $224 SF. Based on the recorded cost on the building permit of $330 SF, a contributory value for the improvements of $224 SF appears more reasonable than the $180 SF use by the PA. Using $224 SF would result in a residual land value of $396,733. 2024-140 Page 4 -58- Page 5 of 7 Deducting a 15% COS would result in a just value indication for the lot of $337,223 or $29.77 SF. Sale 3 sold October 2021, was a pool home and contained 3,120 SF. A residual analysis was also used on this comparable. Due to the age of the sale, the land residual of $18 SF was given less weight. Sale 4 was the only other vacant lot sale presented and was the only lot sale with under 45 FF. After a cost of sale adjustment, this comparable indicated a just value of $182,750 for the subject lot or $21 SF, excluding any time adjustment. The PA's analysis failed to recognize the development limitations of the subject property. In addition, the estimate of just value of $320,138 was based primarily on Sale 1 which has 66 FF and 10,019 SF of usable area, both superior to the subject. The presumption of correctness for the assessment was not established. The admitted evidence from the PA did not prove by the preponderance of the evidence that the property appraiser's just value methodology complied with the 8 Criteria of Section 193.011, F.S. and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The petitioner's evidence was not sufficient enough to establish a just value. The admitted evidence was determined to be sufficiently relevant and credible to meet the standard of proof (Rule 12D-9.027(6), F.A.C.). Based on the evidence presented by both the PA and the petitioner, the record contains competent substantial evidence that cumulatively meets the criteria of section 193.011 F.S. as necessary to determine just value. Therefore, the special magistrate has established a revised value for the subject property as follows. Because three of the sales presented by the PA had 66 front feet or greater, a front foot analysis was not considered as applicable as an analysis based on usable square footage. Based on the PA's analysis, the: just value ranged from $18 SF to $45 SF and indicated an average of $30.75 SF. Applying the average of $30.75 SF to the usable area of the subject, 6,644 SF, would result in a just value indication of $204,303. Recognizing that Sales 3 and 4 would require a time adjustment, which was not applied in the PA's analysis, the adjusted land residuals from Sale 2 of $29.77 SF was considered along with Sale 1 at $45 SF. The average of the two indicated approximately $37.50 SF. Considering that both parcels are approximately 66 front feet and are rectangular in shape, and have at least 50% more usable land than the 2024-140 Page 5 -59- Page 6 of 7 subject, a value conclusion of $35 SF for the usable area of 6,644 SF or $232,540 is considered reasonable for the subject's just value. Conclusions of law for petition 2024-140 As part of an administrative review under Chapter 194 Part I and III, F.S., a revised just value can be established because the record contains competent substantial evidence of just value, that meets the necessary criteria and supports the just value as of January 1. The establishment of the revised just value is authorized by law under section 194.301 F.S. and as a result, it has been applied in this administrative review. As a result of the revised just value applied in this administrative review, the petitioner is granted partial relief. 2024-140 Page 6 -60- Page 7 of 7 The actions below were: taken on your petition. W71 These actions.are a recommendation only,: not final ' ❑;These : actions are _a finaldecision of the VAB if,you.am not satisfied. after you :are notified. of the final, decision of the VAB, you.have the right_#o file a lawsuit . . in circuit court to further contest. your assessment. (See -sections 193.155(8)(1);194.036,194.171(2),:194.181,196151, and. 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) .... :Petition # =2024 449 ' Parcel:ID 31392300026010000202.0 . Petitioner name MCGONIGLE KEVIN Property . .BEACH$IDE DR 202 :. The petitioner is: taxpayer of record E]: taxpayer's' address . representative ORCHID, FL 32963 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary: El Denied your petition ❑:Granted you"r petition :=❑✓ Granted your:petition in part :::Value.. = Value from Before:Board Action Board:: .:'Lines .1. and 4 must be com p leted . TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser Rule: 12D-9.02510 ; f.A.C. Action 1;.'Just value, required " 2;447,466.00 2,447,466.00 2,422,500.0.0` '2. Assessed or classified use. value,* ifapplicable : ' 2,44T486.00 ::.: `..2,447,466,00 2,422,50000 I Exempt value,* enter"O" P ` ,, if none. ; .. :0.0.0: _ : : ; = 0.001': 0.00: 4. Taxable.walue,* required 2,447,466.00 , ,447,466 _ .2.:00 2,422,500.00 ::*:All values "entered should be county.taxable values. School and other taxing °authority values may differ..(Section 196:03.1(7), F.S.) ": Reasons for Decision :.: : : - = Fill-in fields will expand, or add pages as.needed. Findings of: Fact _ .:. _ _ .: .... See attached. -Conclusions of Law. See attached....: RI: Re.commended: Dec ision:of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Stephen J. Boyle .. - - Stephen J .Boyle 02/27/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print:name Date Terri:Collins-Lister Terri Collins -Lister Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is:a.recommen.ded decision', the board:will consider the recommended ;decision . of Address If the line above is blank, the board::does not yet know the date, time; and place when the recommended: decision, will be considered:To find -the information, please call 772-226-1432or visit our website at //vab.indian-river.org/Axia20`a D.Final Decislion of the Value.Adjustment Board' :: Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAR clerk or representative::::: :. ::Print name::,: ;: Date,mailed to:parties:: Page 1 2024-149 61. Finding :af fact: for petition nunmber2024-149 List of Property.Appraiser'.s witnesses and exhibits: comparables', that,coritain 3,-8.10 SF are third:floor units with better ocean views.: These two units. sold for. $948;SF:and $774 SF.:The third: comparable, which: contained 2,236 SF, was also atop floor unit and sold for $1,096 SF:. (The higher price per square foot: Was due to the: substantially smaller size. of the unit:) The subject sold :for $748_ SF. (Although slightly below the range of :the comparables_; the sale price. per SF.was reasonable considering the fact that tlie. subject is: a second floor unit. 'and has =more of. a Limited: ocean. view.) The:;PA' made no adjustments:to the- comparable 'sales .and did not provide a specific Conclusion .'other than to scythe range: of the: comparable sales supported the assessed value of the subject..A preliminary value estimate for the subject property was not established.. A 15% cost of sales (COS) was -not 'deducted from. thesale price of each: comparable sale. (It is noted that :the assessed value of the: subject.is 86% of the purchase price.) - Summary :of evidence presented byahe petitioner.: The °petitioner testified that the real :estate taxes after,his purchase increased by 28%. The:petitionerpointed: out that :all of the property: appraiser's comparables were top floor. units with'better views aiidlarger:balconid.:. At the hearing; the petitioner.subiiiitted 2 tax.bills showing the assess- ed.value of. other units iri-the . . subject building. Nocomparables sales were presented: by the petitioner: in orderao support;an adjustment for the higher floors location: or to .establish :an estimate of market value for the .subject.. Rebuttal Testimony: There was iib rebuttal. Special magistrate's analysis and finding o.f.facts:...' The comparable: sales= presented by the PA were applicable :for the analysis sand valuation of the subject property. The. comparable sales, were based on the recorded sale price: When .considering the difference in value for the floor locations, the comparable sales support that the purchase of the:subjecfproperty was market oriented. The two comparables, that are similar in size as the subject, sold for at least $100,000 more than the subject. No evidence was presented to dispute that Ahe sale of the -subject as: a market oriented transaction. Base on the.evidence :. presented; the PA did not establish a preliminary value for the subject property. No COS deduction was -made to -the comparable sales. Page 2 2024-149 :: : _` Page 3:of 4 =63- Florida Statute 194:301 (1)incorporates section 193:011(8) whichprovides for -the PA to: deduct a .cost of sale .(COS) in arriving at just value :assessments and requires the PA to .present evidenceshowing PA's COS deductions. as -reported on Form DR 493 because such deductions w;exe applied -in making just value assessments: and areprofessionally acceptedappraisal-practices:: In addition, to not make. a COS deduction. to the°subject property, the PA would riot. adhere to section . 194:301(2)(6)3., FS.,_ which:precludes the PA :in appfaising 'the:.petitio'n, ed property, from using appraisal practices: that are arbitrarily. ._different -from the: appraisal practices. the' PA. applied t0 the comparable, properties within the'county: Because a preliminary value was not established by the PA and a COS deduction.. was: not shown 'in. the:: analysis of the comparable sales, :the presumption of correctness for the: assessment was:not established. The: adtn_ittie:d evidence fro'i the PA did.i of prove by the:preponderance of the evidence that the property appraiser's.just value:methodology cornplied.with the.first and eighth.criteria.of section 193:011, F S.' and professionally accepted appraisal practices.:: The: establishment. of:°a preliminary value for the subj ect was based on using the. . June 2023 sale of:the: subjectfor $2:$50,000 Deducting a 15% COS, :results in a just value for the subject of $2,422,500.::.`: Conclusions of law for petition 2024=149 'As part of an administrative,review:under Chapter J94_Paft I and Ill, F.S , a revised just:value can be.established-because the record contains competent substantial evidence of just, value, :that meets: the necessary criteria and supports the just: value as -of January 1' Theestablishment of.the revised just value'is authorized:by law under section 194:301 F S aid as a result, it has been=applied it this.adriinistrative :review::: Provisions of section:- ection 194.361'. F.S,. require that the justvaluatioin standards of sectibn 193.011; F.S.; which includes the eight criteria, must be followed regardless of whether the property was sold, the valuation approaches used, A single property appraisal techniques or mass appraisal -techniques were ;used.. _To not apply, when; otherwise warranted, the eighth criterion iii an administrative review because the property.. has: not sold: or based on the valuation approach or technique used, would: result m. -an- arbitrary appraisal practice under :_subparagraph 194.301:(2)(a)3 -VS.. --::Therefore, it has been.applied in this administrative review. As -a result of -the revised just value applied in this - .. _. administrative review, thepetitioner i - granted partial relief - Page 3 2024-149:: Page 4 of 4 DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Indian River County FLQRIDA The actions below were taken on your petition. DR -485V R. 11/23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 0 These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1), 194.036,194.171(2),194.181,196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2024-155 Parcel ID 30382500019000000010.0 Petitioner name BEASLEY TAREEK S Property 7777 GRAND OAK CIR The petitioner is: taxpayer'of record ❑ taxpayer's address SEBASTIAN, FL 32958 representative ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition 0 Granted your petition ❑ Granted your petition in part Value Lines 1 and 4 must be completed Value from TRIM Notice Before Board Action Value presented by property appraiser Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. After Board Action 1. Just value, required 1,016,964.00 1,016,964.00 949,503.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 1,016,964.00 1,016,964.00 949,503.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 1,016,964.00 1 1,016,964.00 949,503.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision Fill-in fields will expand, or add pages as needed. Findings of Fact See attached. Conclusions of Law See attached. ❑✓ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Stephen J Boyle Stephen J Boyle 03/25/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Terri Collins -Lister Terri Collins -Lister 03/28/2025 Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 772-226-1432 or visit our website at //vab.indian-river.org/Axia202 ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 2024-155 -65- Page 1 of 6 Finding of fact for petition number 2024=155 List of Property Appraiser's witnesses and exhibits: George Clarke and Kevin Kinel, representing the Property Appraiser's Office, appeared in person. The evidence submitted by the Property Appraiser (PA) included several exhibits. Submitted into Axia included the following: a cover page, a list of evidence, a request for evidence, methodology and considerations by the property appraiser, information regarding Florida statute 193.011, a sales comparison a chart with six comparable sales, a front.view and aerial of the subject, the property record card for the subject, the 2024 trim notice for the subject, the revised trim notice for the subject, a street photograph, aerial and the properly record card for each of the 6 comparable sales, a location map showing'the subject and the six comparable sales, an aerial map showing the subject and four'of the six comparable sales. The PA presented 2 land sale verbally. The sales were in the subject neighborhood. The purchase money mortgage was presented at the hearing. The evidence presented at the hearing was marked and admitted -in to evidence. The property record card for the subject was in Axia. The above evidence was admitted into evidence, without objection, at the hearing. List of Petitioner's witnesses and exhibits: Tareek Beasley, the property owners, appeared in person. The petitioner submitted several exhibits into Axia and several MLS listings and a sheet summarizing the history of the damage to the property and the sales history were presented at the hearing. The evidence presented at the hearing was marked and admitted in to evidence. The evidence in Axia included the petition, a comprehensive rider for the residential contract for sale and purchase showing that the seller would hold a purchase money mortgage, emails between the previous owner and Serve Pro regarding water damage and restoration to the subject property, three contracts for the sale and purchase of the subject property, an email with a verbal offer for the subject property, 4 MLS sheets showing three comparable sales and one listing to compare to the subject property, several trim notices for the subject property, a HUD -1 settlement statement for the purchase of the subject property. This evidence was admitted in to evidence, without objection, at the hearing. 2024-155 Page 1 -66- Page 2 of 6 Overview of the Subject Property: The subject property is a single-family residence located at 7777 Grand Oak Circle in Sebastian, FL. The property is a two story home built in 2009 and contains 3,473 SF of air conditioned area. The home includes nine rooms, four bedrooms and three and '/z baths, a three car garage and a pool. The property is on a 0.58 acre lot and had been partially remodeled on the interior as a result of flooding in the upstairs bathroom in 2022. As of January 1St, 2024, the PA considered the home to be in excellent condition as a result of the remodeling. Summary of evidence presented by the property appraiser: The PA established the just value for the property at $1,016,964 or $259 SF. The PA presented 6 comparable sales of single family homes. The comparables sold between $600,000 and $1,126,000 or between $231 SF to $339 SF. Sale 1 was within the subject's subdivision and sold October 2023 for $600,000 or $248 SF. The comparable sales were adjusted for the cost of sale at 15%, site size, condition, bathroom count, square foot (SF) of living area, garage bays and miscellaneous for not having a pool. The PA testified that the first adjustment applied to the comparables was the deduction for the cost of sale (COS) at 15%. (The COS adjustment was part of the gross adjustments applied to the comparables. This was incorrect methodology, as the cost of sale deduction should be made after establishing the preliminary value based on the adjusted sale prices indicated by the comparables.) Comparable 3, which was a waterfront property and sold for $1,126,000, was adjusted downward by $100,000 for the waterfront location. Comparable 1 was adjusted upward for its smaller lot size at $3.00 SF. The PA adjusted the comparable sales, except for comparable sales 6, upward by $75 SF for condition. The PA considered the subject to be in excellent condition due to the renovations following the flooding in the house. The adjustment for the difference in bathroom count was made at $10,000 per half bath. The adjustment for the difference in living area was made at $175 SF. The adjustment for the difference in car storage was made at $10,000 per bay. Only comparable 1, that was located within the subject neighborhood, did not have a pool. An upward adjustment of $75,000 was applied. The adjustments applied to the comparable sales appeared reasonable based on the data presented. 2024-155 Page 2 -67- Page 3 of 6 After adjustments the comparable sales indicated a range from a low of $916,950 to a high of $1,076,475. The PA testified that comparables 1 and 2 were the closes to the subject. The average of the six comparable sales was $991,213 or $330 SF. The PA testified that the indicated value, based on $330 SF is $1,146,090. The range of the comparable sales supported the PA's estimate of just value at $1,016,964. (The average sale price of the comparables did not support the just value.) The average sale price of $330 SF did support the PA's just value estimate of $293 SF (due to the majority of the comparable sales being smaller than the subj ect). Summary of evidence presented by the petitioner: The petitioner did not request a market (just) value for the property. The petitioner testified that the subject sold in 2024 but was listed in 2023. The property was originally listed in 2021 for $995,000 and sold for $840,000 in May 2021. In January 2022 the house was placed on the market for $1,300,000. The 2022 TRIM Notice reflected an increase in the assessed value to $1,131,049. In May 2022 the 2nd floor bath flooded the house. In August 2022 the property was listed for sale at $990,000 with the flooding damage and withdrawn after about one year on the market. In October 2023 the property went back on the market at $1,400,000, and was reduced several times over the next few months. At that time, the house was not totally remodeled. It had been gutted down to the studs in just the kitchen area and redone. The pictures (from the MLS) show the damage and remodeling. The house was on the market for 140 days before he purchased it. (There were 3 written contract and one verbal offer (for $700,000) made between January and February 2024. The first two written offers ranged from $1,000,000 to $1,050;000 (both with owner financing) that fell through (the buyers backed out). The petitioner, who was the listing realtor, purchased the property for $900,000, with owner financing, in March 2024. There was no commission paid on the purchase. The listing agreement had a commission of 4% if the listing agent represented both sides.) The petitioner testified that after he purchased the house there was only "punch out" items left to complete the renovation to the house. The petitioner testified that the house had a river view, but the construction of the house next door blocked the view. The petitioner testified that the house (the subject) has lower level fmishes compared to the comparables. 2024-155 Page 3 -68- Page 4 of 6 Rebuttal Testimony: The both parties agreed that anything that was presented in rebuttal was ok to be admitted in to evidence. This included the email from Serve Pro regarding the damage, a timeline history for the subject, MLS listings and the copy of the purchase money mortgage submitted (by the PA). The PA testified that the subject was purchased in 2024. The PA testified that they submitted 6 good comparable sales and that the petitioner didn't present any better sales. No other testimony or evidence was presented by either party that wasn't discussed during the presentation of evidence. Special magistrate's analysis and finding of facts: The comparable sales presented by the PA were considered adequate for the analysis and valuation of the subject's just value. However, the methodology utilized by the PA, of deducting the cost of sale from the purchase price and not from the indication of preliminary value (after making adjustments to the comparables) was incorrect methodology and resulted in a higher indication of just value. As a result, the presumption of correctness was not established. The admitted evidence from the PA did not prove by the preponderance of the evidence that the property appraiser's just value methodology complied with the 8 Criteria of Section 193.011, F.S. and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Utilizing the PA's comparable sales and the adjustments applied to the comparable sales indicated the following: Petition 2024-155 Subject Comp 11 Comp 21 Comp 3�_ Comp 4L_ Comp 5- Comp 6' 7777 7762 3380 13 86 Blue Island St 100 Wood Stork Way 514 Cross Creek 633 Yearling Trl Grand Oak Grand Oak Cir Old Dixie Hwy - - l Sale Price $ 1,016,964 $ 600,000 $ 900,000 $1,126,000 $ 775,000 $ 7_68,000 $ 865,000 SF A/C 3473 2,424 3,904 3,884_ 2,721 3,089 2,549 $'s SF A/C $ 293 _ $ 248 $ 231 $ 290 $ 285 $ 249 $ 339 Size adj $ 175 $ 183,575 $ (75,425) $ (71,925) $ 131,600 $ 67,200 $ 161,700 Land Size 0.58 0.33 $ 35,000 0.651 1.22 $ (100,000) 0.55 $ - 0.5 0.57 $ - Condition $ 75 $ 181,800 $ 292,800 $ 291,300 $ 204,075 $ 231,675 $ - Baths 3.5 3.5 3 $ 10,000 3 $ 10,000 3.5 3 $ 10,000 3 $ 10,000 3 $ 10,000 Garages 1 3 3 3 3 3 2$ 10,000 Pool Yes No $ 75.000 Yes Yes $ Yes $ - Yes $ - Yes _ Tota I Adjustments $ 485,375 $ 227,375 $ 119,375 $ 345,675 $ 308,875 $ 181,700 Preliminary Value $1,117,063 $ 1,085,375 $1,127,375 $1,245,375 $ 1,120,675 $ 1,076,875 $1,046,700 Less COS 15% $ (162,806) $ (169,106) $ (186,806) $ (168,101) $ (161,531) $ (157,005) Just Value $ 949,503 $ 922,569 $ 958,269 $1,058,569 $ 952,574 $ 915,344 $ 889,695 Average $ 316 $ 381 $ 245 $ 273 $ 350 $ 296 $ 349 Applying the correct methodology, provided a range of preliminary values from the comparable sales, between $1,046,700 to $1,245,375 with an average of Page 4 2024-155 Page 5 of 6 -69- $1,117,063. After a 15% cost of sale deduction, a just value of $949,503 or $273 SF is indicated. The admitted evidence was determined to be sufficiently relevant and credible to meet the standard of proof (Rule 12D-9.027(6), F.A.C.). Based on the evidence presented by both the PA and the petitioner, the record contains competent substantial evidence that cumulatively meets the criteria of section 193.011 F.S. as necessary to determine just value. Therefore, the special magistrate has established a revised value for the subject property at $949,503. Conclusions of law for petition 2024-155 As part of an administrative review under Chapter 194 Part I and III, F.S., a revised just value can be established because the record contains competent substantial evidence of just value, that meets the necessary criteria and supports the just value as of January 1. The establishment of the revised just value is authorized by law under section 194.301 F.S. and as a result, it has been applied in this administrative review. As a result of the revised just value applied in this administrative review, the petitioner is granted relief. 2024-155 Page 5 -70- Page 6 of 6 Decision Summary_ 2 Denied your petition ❑:Granted your petition : ❑ Granted your:petition in part Value Value from : ,Before:Board Action' .After Board : Lines.1. and 4 mustbe completed - .. ..: : ..... TRIM Notiee . ... Value presented by property appraiser Rule.12D-9.02510 ; F.A.C. ::. Action 1 'Just value, required 2;480,798.00'2,480,798.00 2;480,798.0.0 :2. Assessed or classified use: value,*. dapplicable: 2,480,798.00 l.2,480,798.00 ;:2,480,798:00 3. Exempt value,* enter:" 0" if none-: 0.0.0; :: 0.00 .: 0.00: 4. Taxable_walue,* required 2,480,798.00 • - • • :2,480,798:00 2,480;798.00 *All values entered should be county: taxable.values. School and other taxing authority. values may differ: (Section 196.031(7), F.S:) :: Reasons for Decision:.-::.: Fill-in'fields will expand, or:add pages as.needed. Findings of: Fact _ ... (See Attached) .... Conclusions of Law - (See. Attached)..:: ✓❑ ,Recommended: Decision :of.Special Magistrate :Finding and conclusions above are f6commend6tions. : Stephen Neill 'Stephen Neill 03/06/2025. -Signature, special magistrate Print:narrie .:Date Terri -Collins -Lister : Terri'Collins-Lister Signature, VAB clerk or special representative = Priint name Date If this is:a:recommended decision; the board: will consider the recommene#ed decision rin at Address .... ' .... ' ... .. . If the line above is blank,: the board, does not yet know the date, time, and place when the: recommended: decision: will be _ considered:To find the information, please call 772-226-1432 or visit our website:at //vab.indian-river:org/Axia202' D Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value: adjustment board Print name Date.of decision . Signature, VARclerk or representative::::: :Print name::::: ::.Date mailed to:parties:: 2024-157::.. ... : Page 1 of 3 . Findings of Fact for Petition 2024-157: _ List of:Property Appraiser Fxhibits/Wi-( esses*. *-Austin Boller:representing the :Property Appraisers_ Office (PAO) : * Summary; :PTO- Bulletin, 8 Criteria, Case: Law Sales Comparison Approach ... Summary of Assessments &'Supporting Data Maps, Property Cards, Sketches List of Petitioners EAibits/Witnesses: Petitioner — Linda Downey . . .... --- : * Verbal :Testimony : * Comparable Sales, Appraisals : .... Summary of Evidence presented by the Property Appraiser: The Subject Property is:a single-family residence located at 3735 _Flamingo Driv . Vero Beach; FL. The property is: located in the:Central Breach (Veromar) area and contains 1.08'acres. The property:was built.in:1956 and -contains 3;851 square feet: The property contains:'6.5 platted lots.. The propertyappraiser-indicated that there is a highest and: best use concern:for this property given :the age: of the home: and value :of the underlying land for:redevelopment. The PAO provided a summary of comparable:sales.:The three:cornparable: sales indicated a range from $-2;301,8.00 to $2,572,450 after- adjustments. -The PAO adjusted for Cost of Sale, Site Size, Bathroom. Miscellaneous; and Living -Area on a: lump sum: basis, which: is typical :real estate appraisal: practice for single family:residentiaf appraisals::: The PAO concluded at $2;480,798: The PAO then provided a land:value-analysis. Four comparables indicated an adjusted price per square foot of $50 to $67. The PAO conclusion is $52.73 per square' -f6 ot of land; based on $2,480;798:. The PAO indicated thatthe property was listed at $4;500,000.:; The PAO provided verbal testimony that:they are statutorilyrequired to value the improvements but:concur:that the ::... highest and best use is -to raze the -improvements. The-PAO indicated that where the improvements are valued on the ; the overall value s:in line with: market :data and:the appraisals provided based.on: :a land valuation. property card : Summary:of Evidence Presented by the Petitioner:: :. . The petitioner's:main concern was the fact.that their. assessment:is that the: improvements are: still being considered in the overall-valuation'.:In her opinion;the:valuation methodology that -includes -increasing improvements isnot.:' applicable :to the:property.. The: petitioner proyided:two appraisals that:indicate'd :that the. highest and best use is for redevelopment. and that -the improvements have no value. The petitioner indicated that the improvements Have increased by. over 706/6 over the oast couple of: years. ::.The petitioner indicated that:the house:lias many: issues, including electrical, plumbing;:ari older kitchen, aridwindows::: The petitioner also indicated that insurance is:'prohibitive on older homes such as the Subject. .. The petitioner provided a list of comparable sales and two appraisals. The comparable. sales data that was provided ..included: tear downs: and vacant lot sales. These indicate. -range from $40 to: $82 per square foot. The petitioner also: : provided two appraisals that indicated values above the:conclusion of the PAO. The concluded value by the PAO: is : within this range at $52.73 per_square foot.-:. All documents submitted by the PAO: and the petitioner were admissible and:admitted into:evidence:without objection.: Magi stratesAnalysis arid:Findings:of Facts::: From all evidence presented at the hearing it appears thatthe improvements have reached the end: of their useful life.:: : This is due to a:combination of the large size of the land, high value of the land, and the age/condition of the . improvements:: It appears.that the main issue Ghat the petitioner has is the continued :increasing value of the improvements on the property :appraiser system: even though the improvements are depreciating and likely have little to no value.at this time. This was:also the-. two:appraisals that were submitted --.by the petitioner. 2024-157::. Page 2 -of 3 72::- EMW DECISION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD VALUE PETITION Indian River , County FLORIDA DR -485V R. 11/23 Rule 12D-16.002 F.A.C. Eff. 11/23 The actions below were taken on your petition. 0 These actions are a recommendation only, not final ❑ These actions are a final decision of the VAB If you are not satisfied after you are notified of the final decision of the VAB, you have the right to file a lawsuit in circuit court to further contest your assessment. (See sections 193.155(8)(1),194.036,194.171(2),194,181,196.151, and 197.2425, Florida Statutes.) Petition # 2024-162 Parcel ID 32401800006000000001.0 Petitioner name PROPERTY TAX ADJUSTMENTS & APPEA Property The petitioner is: ❑ taxpayer of record ❑✓ taxpayer's 1000 SUNRISE TER address representative INDIAN RIVER SHORES, FL 32963 ❑ other, explain: Decision Summary ❑ Denied your petition ❑ Granted your petition © Granted your petition.in part Value Value from Before Board Action After Board Lines 1 and 4 must be completed TRIM Notice Value presented by property appraiser 'Rule 12D-9.025(10), F.A.C. Action 1. Just value, required 4,137,551.00 4,137,551.00 3,550,993.00 2. Assessed or classified use value,* if applicable 4,137,551.00 4,137,551.00 3,550,993.00 3. Exempt value,* enter "0" if none 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Taxable value,* required 4,137,551.00 4,137,551.00 3,550,993.00 *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing_ authority values may differ, (Section 196.031(7), F.S.) Reasons for Decision_ Fill-in fields will expand, or add pages as needed. Findings of Fact See attached. Conclusions of Law See attached. ❑✓ Recommended Decision of Special Magistrate Finding and conclusions above are recommendations. Stephen J Boyle Stephen J Boyle 03/31/2025 Signature, special magistrate Print name Date Terri Collins -Lister Terri Collins -Lister 04/01/2025 Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date If this is a recommended decision, the board will consider the recommended decision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board does not yet know the date, time, and place when the recommended decision will be considered. To find the information, please call 772-226=1432 or visit our website at //vab.indian7river.org/Axia202 ❑ Final Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision Signature, VAB clerk or representative Print name Date mailed to parties 2024-162 -74- Pagel of 8 Finding of fact for petition number 2024-162 List of Property Appraiser's witnesses and exhibits: Austin Boller, representing the Property Appraiser's Office, appeared in person. The evidence submitted by the Property Appraiser (PA) included 109 pages. Submitted into Axia included the following: a cover page, a list of evidence, a request for evidence, 12D-9.020 Exchange of Evidence statute, Methodology and Considerations by the property appraiser (PA), information regarding Florida Statute 193.011, a sales comparison a chart with 4 comparable sales, an aerial showing the location of the subject and comparable sales, the MLS listing information and property record cards for the subject and comparable sales and for the comparable sales used by the petitioner; and case laws. The above information was admitted in to evidence, without objection, at the hearing. List of Petitioner's witnesses and exhibits: Marc Kleiner, Esq. and Nicholas McCarville, Esq. from Property Tax Adjustments and Appeals P.A., representing the property owner, appeared by phone. The petitioner submitted 3 exhibits into Axia. The first exhibit consisted of 28 pages. It included a summary of evidence, a summary of testimony, a summary of the subject's values, the property record cards for the subject, the 2024 TRIM Notice, a two page chart summarizing the subject, the comparable sales and adjustments made to the comparable sales, an aerial of the subject, an aerial of the overall area where the subject and comparables are located, an aerial of each of the comparable sales, and 1 vacant oceanfront lot sales. The second exhibit included 63 pages. This package included numerous articles regarding factors influencing the market and impacting the sale of residential properties in Florida. The third exhibit consisted of 237 pages and included several Florida Statutes regarding the Value Adjustment process, bulletins to the VAB attorneys, information regarding the cost of sale (COS) deduction, information from the 2024 VAB training manual, various other memorandums and articles associated with the VAB procedures, and several articles regarding the influences on the residential market in Florida. This evidence was admitted in to evidence, without objection, at the hearing. Overview of the Subject Property: 2024-162 Page 1 -75- Page 2 of 8 The subject property is an oceanfront single-family residence located at 1000 Sunrise Terrace in the town of Indian River Shores, FL. The property is a two story home built in 1968 and contains 4,409 SF of air conditioned area. The home includes three bedrooms and four baths, a two car garage and a pool with spa. The property is on a 0.75 acre lot with 100 FF. According to the PA, the property has been renovated. The property record card (PRC) indicates that the effective year built of the home is 2000. This would indicate that the improvements have an effective age of 23 years old, as of January 1, 2024. Summary of evidence presented by the property appraiser: The PA established the just value for the property at $4,137,551 or $938 SF at the beginning of the hearing. The PA testified that the most recent sale of the subject was in December 2021 for $3,750,000 and is current on the market for $4,500,000. The PA testified that the subject was built 55 years ago, but had been renovated after 2018, so they considered the effective age to be 10 years old. (It is noted that no proof of the renovations was provided and the PRC showed only 2 permits, totaling $56,779, from 2018 to current.) The PA presented 4 comparable sales of single family homes. The comparables sold between $3,500,000 and $5,000,000 or between $918 SF to $1,557 SF. The four comparables ranged in size from 3,012 SF to 4,913 SF (only Sale 3 was larger than the subject property.) The comparable sales were adjusted for the COS at 15%, site size, frontage on the ocean, construction quality, condition, bathroom count, square foot (SF) of living area. There was no adjustment for garage bays and all the comps had a pool. The PA testified that the first adjustment applied to the comparables was the deduction for the COS at 15%. (The COS adjustment was part of the gross adjustments applied to the comparables. This was incorrect methodology, as the cost of sale deduction should be made after establishing a preliminary value for the subject based on the adjusted sale prices indicated by the comparables.) Sales 1, 2 and 4 were adjusted for having a different size building envelope. The subject's building envelope is considered to be .58 acres. Sale 1 had a building envelope of 0.73 acres and was adjusted downward by $290,564 or approximately $44 SF. Sale 2 had a smaller building envelope and was adjusted upward by $218,428 or approximately $39 SF. Sale 3 had a similar size building envelope. 2024-162 Page 2 -76- Page 3 of 8 Sale 4 had a much larger building envelope of 0.92 acres and was adjusted downward by $287,559 or $19 SF. (No explanation for the site size adjustment was provided.) Sales 1 and 2 had similar frontage along the ocean as the subject. Sale 3 had 87 FF and was adjusted upward at $20,000 per front foot or $260,000. Sale 4 had 121 front feet and was adjusted downward by $420,000. The comparables were adjusted for construction quality at $100 SF of living area. Sale 1 was not adjusted. Sale 2 was considered very good. quality construction and was adjusted downward by $301,200. Sale 3 was considered similar in quality and received no adjustment. Sale 4 was considered to be very good quality construction and was adjusted downward by $414,300. The comparable sales were adjusted for effective age. The subject was assigned an effective age of 10 years. (It is noted that this was inconsistent with the PRC which showed the subject had an effective age of 23 years. The comparables were adjusted based on the use of a 10 year effect age for the subject.) This resulted in an upward adjustment to Sale 1 of $1,260,000. No adjustment was applied to Sale 2. An upward adjustment was applied to Sale 3 of $450,800 and an upward adjustment to Sale 4 of $1,000,000. The adjustment was based on 2% of the sale price of the comparable for a difference of five years. or greater. The comparables were adjusted for the difference in bathrooms at $50,000 per bathroom. The comparables were adjusted at $300 SF for the difference in living area. This resulted in an upward adjustment to Sale 1 of $202,500, Sale 2 of $419,100, a downward adjustment to Sale 3 of $151,200 and an upward adjustment to Sale 4 of $79,800. After adjustments, including the cost of sale adjustment, (which was deducted from the recorded sale price not the adjusted sale price) the comparables indicated a range from $4,196,936 to a high of $4,373,253 and.$868 SF to $1,452 SF. The weighted average of the 4 sales was reported at $4,257,535 and at $1,158 SF. The PA testified that the conclusion of just value was based on a weighted average with most weight given to Sale 1 (50%), Sale 2 (25%), Sale 3 (15%) and Sale 4 (10%). This supported the PA's estimate of just value. Summary of evidence presented by the petitioner: The petitioner requested a market (just) value for the property at $3,525,000. The petitioner testified that the house was built in 1968 and (per the PRC) shows an effective year built of 2000, which would indicate an effective age of 24 years. Page 3 2024-162 Page 4 of 8 -77- The petitioner presented five comparable sales. The petitioner testified that in their opinion, Sale 3 was most similar to the subject due to size. (It is note that Sale 3 was also used by the PA. Sale 2 was the June 2024 sale of an oceanfront patio home in Sea Forest Court. It's located on a 0.36 acre lot with 57 FF on the ocean. Because this property sold in mid -2024 it was excluded, by the Special Magistrate, from the comparable sales analysis.) The remaining comparable sold between $2,985,000 to $11,000,000 or from $709 SF to a high of $1,286 SF. The comparables ranged in size from 2,322 SF to 11,581 SF. The comparable sales were adjusted for the difference in building size, ocean frontage and bathroom count. A 15% cost of sale deduction was also made. (It was based on the recorded sale price not the adjusted sale price or the preliminary value indication.) The adjustments were based on $100 SF for the difference in living area, $5,000 FF for the difference in ocean frontage and $50,000 per full bathroom for the difference in the bathroom count. (It is noted that the living area square footage adjustment and the front footage adjustment were considered to be substantially under the contributory value of each. No adjustment was applied for the difference in effective age.) After adjustments, the petitioner's comparable sales (including Sale 2 and deducting the COS from the recorded sale price of the comparables) indicated -a just value range from $2,767,850 to $7,302,800 or between $518 SF to $1,192 SF with an average of $799 SF. (The average of the comparable sales was not shown but was $4,044,910.) The petitioner applied the average sale price of $799 SF (in the petitioner's analysis that including Sale 2) to the 4,409 SF of living area to arrive at a just value for the subject of $3,525,000. (Remodeling the petitioner's grid, excluding Sale 2 and deducting the COS from the adjusted sale price of the comparables, indicated a just value range from $2,731,645 to $7,609,880 or between $531 SF to $1,176 SF. The average of the comparable sales was $4,583,434 or $788 SF (again excluding Sale 2). Appling the average sale price of the comparables of $788 SF, a just value of $3,475,176 is indicated. Below is a summary of the petitioner's 4 comparables. The adjustments and just value indications vary slightly from the petitioner's chart due to deducting the COS from the adjusted sale price of the comparables and rounding adjustments.) 2024-162 Page 4 -78- Page 5 of 8 Petition 2024-162 Subject Comp 1 Comp 3 Comp 4 Comps Petitioner's Sales 1000 Sunrise 985 Beachcombe Ln 121 Mariner Beach 100 Seaway Ct 910 Reef Rd Terr Lane Sale Price $ 4,137,551 $ 2,985,000 $ 4,508,000 $ 11,000,000 $ 5,500,000 SF A/C 4409 2,322 4,913 11,581 7,759 $'s SF A/C Size adj $ 100_ $ 938 $1,286 $ 9S8 $ 950 $ 709 $ 208,700 $ (50,400) $ (717,200) $ (335,000) Land $ 5,0006 $100 116 $ (80,000) 80 $ 100,000 326 $ (1,130,000) 124 $ (120,000) Condition $ $ - $ - $ $ Baths $ 50000= 4 2 $ 100,000 4 $ 8 $ (200,000) 8 $ (200,000) Garages Pool _ $ Tota I Adjustments 228,700 $ 49,600 $ (2,047,200) $ (655,000) Preliminary Value $4,557,600 $ 8,952,800 $ 4,845,000 Less COS 15% 4 L$3,213,700 482,055) $ (683,640) $ (1,342,920) $ .(726,750) Just Value $ 4,583,434 2 731,645 $ 3,873,960 $ 7,609,880 $ 4,118,250 Average SF $ 788 1,176 $ 789 $ 657 $ 531 Rebuttal Testimony: The PA testified that the difference in the effective year built between the PRC and the grid was "their opinion for this hearing, based on the renovations to the subject and will be corrected on the PRC going forward". The PA testified that the permit value was not a reliable indicator of either the cost or the contributory value of the renovations. The PA testified that the PRC's in the petitioner's evidence show 2025 values and were work in progress. The petitioner testified that the value shown in their grid (page 2 of 2) were based on what the PA submitted to the DOR. The PA testified that, in their opinion, the comparables used by the petitioner were not as comparable as the sales they presented. Sales 1 and 2 have inferior interior finish (based on MLS photos) and are too small (living area), Sale 4 was vastly superior to the subject and the size adjustment of $100 SF was understated, and Sale 5 has a vastly superior interior finish. The PA testified that the petitioner did not use 975 Sunrise Terrace (PA's Sale 1) which was the house next door to the subject. The PA later testified that, per the MLS, Sale 1 could be a teardown and that it was significantly renovated after the purchase and resold in 2024 for substantially more. The petitioner testified that Sales 4 and 5, which were characterized as being vastly superior to the subject, sold for $949 SF and $708 SF. The subject is assessed at $938 SF. Considering no adjustments, other than the COS, those two comparables support a reduction. The petitioner testified that they should have included the PA's Sale 1. This comparable sold for $937 SF and after just a COS adjustment would support a reduction. The petitioner testified that the effective age adjustment to Sale 1, of $1,260,000, was not supportable based on the evidence presented and 2024-162 Page 5 -79- Page 6 of 8 that this was true for the rest of the comparables. Without the effective age adjustment, 3 of 4 comparables support a reduction in value. No other new testimony or evidence was presented by either parry during rebuttal. Special magistrate's analysis and finding of facts: The comparable sales presented by the PA were considered adequate for the analysis and valuation of the subject's just value. However, the methodology utilized by the PA, of deducting the cost of sale from the purchase price and not from the indication of preliminary value (after making adjustments to the comparables) was incorrect methodology and may have resulted in a higher indication of just value. In addition, the use of a 10 year effective age for the subject and a different effective age for Sales 2 and 4, than shown on the PRC, resulted in adjustments that increased the estimate of just value. As a result, the presumption of correctness was not established. The admitted evidence from the PA did not prove by the preponderance of the evidence that the property appraiser's just value methodology complied with the 8 Criteria of Section 193.011, F.S. and professionally accepted appraisal practices. Utilizing the PA's comparable sales and the adjustments applied to the comparable sales, but with the effective ages shown on the PRC -for the subject and the comparables, indicated the following: Petition 202_4-162 Subject Comp 1 mp Co2 Comp 3 Comp 4 PA's SCA _ 1000 Sunrise 975 Sunrise 560 Reef Rd� 121 Mariner Beach 2285 Genesea Ln Sale Price $ 4,137,551 $ 3,500,000 $4,690,500 $4,508,000 $ 5,000,000 SF A/C 4409 3,734 - 3,012 4,913 4,143 $'s SF A/C $ 938 $ 937 $ 1,557 $ 918 $ 1,207 Size adj A/C $ r,300: $ 202,500 $ 419,100 $ (151,200) $ 79,800 Land Size 0.58 0.73 $ (290,564) 0.45 $ 118,428 0.53 0.92 $ (287,559) FF $ 20;000. 100 100 $ 103 $ - 87 $ 260,000 121 $ (420,000) Quality $ 100:, CBS/FRM/DG CBS/VG $ - CBS/VG $ (301,200) CBS/FRM CBS/VG $ (414,300) Eff Age 2% 23 28 $ 350000 16 $ (656,670) 15 $ (721,280) 30 $ 700,000 Condition Renovated ORG_ $ - Renovat $ - LmtUp $ - LmtUp $. - Baths $50;000: 4 3 $ 50,000 3 $ 50,000 5.5 $ (75,000) 3 $ . 50,000 Pool/Mist -_' Yes Yes ' $- Yes $- Yes/EL $ (50,000) Yes $ . - Total Adjustments $ 311,936 $ (270,342) $ (737,480) $ (292,059) Preliminary Value $4,177,639 $ 3,811,936 $ 4,420,158 $ 3,770,520 $ 4,707,941 Less COS 15% $ (571,790) _ $ (663,024) $ (565,578) $ (706,191) Just Value $ 3,550,993 $ 3,240,146 $ 3,757,134 $ 3,204,942 $ 4,001,750 Average $ 933 $ 868 $ 1,247 $ 652 $ 966 2024-162 Page 6 -80- Page 7 of 8 Applying the correct methodology, provided a range of preliminary values from the comparable sales, between $3,770,520 to $4,707,941 with an average of $4,177,639. After a 15% cost of sale deduction, a just value of $3,550,993 or $805 SF is indicated. The just value indication for the subject at $805 SF is at the lower end of the range ($625 SF to $1,247 SF) of the comparables and below the average of $933 SF, due to the majority of the comparables being smaller than the subject. The admitted evidence was determined to be sufficiently relevant and credible to meet the standard of proof (Rule 12D-9.027(6), F.A.C.). Based on the evidence presented by both the PA and the petitioner, the record contains competent substantial evidence that cumulatively meets the criteria of section 193.011 F. S. as necessary to determine just value: Therefore, the Special Magistrate has established a revised value. Conclusions of law for petition 2024-162 As part of an administrative review under Chapter 194 Part I and III, F.S., a revised just value can be established because the record contains competent substantial evidence of just value, that meets the necessary criteria and supports the just value as of January 1. The establishment of the revised just value is authorized by law under section 194.301 F. S. and as a result, it has been applied in this administrative review. As a result of the revised just value applied in this administrative review, the petitioner is granted partial relief. 2024-162 Page 7 -81- Page 8 of 8 The=actionsbelow were: taken on your petition. W These actions:are a recommendatiart only, not final ❑:These: actions area final -decision of the VAB If.you are not satisfied after you :are notified. of the'fnal.decision of the VAB; you-have`the•rightto file a.lawsuit. incircuitcourt to furthercontest your assessment. (See; sections 193.155(8)_(1);:194.036,194.171(2),194.181,196.151, and. 1:97.2425, Florida Statutes.) -Petition:#_ 2024 167: :Parcel: ID:32401800055000000:003.0 :: =: Petitioner name KESLER EMIL T::.' Property 5715 HIGHWAX Al 3: The petitioneris: ✓❑ taxpayer of'record El"taxpayer's address representative INDIAN RIVER SHORES, FL 32963 ❑ other, explain ... Decision Summary: 2 Denied your petition ❑: Granted your petition:: ❑Granted your petition in part Value Value from Before:Board Action After Board., . ... Lines.1.and 4 mustbe completed'. _. TRIM Notice.::Rule:12D-9.02510F.A.C.: Value presented by property appraiser ;. ` Action 1, Just value, required'631,329.00 631,329.00 -:631329.00' =:2. Assessed or classified use.value,*. ifapplicable: 631;329.00 :.::: 631;329:.00 631,32900 3; Exempt value,* enter:"0" if none.: 0.0.0: 0.00 :. 0.00: 4. Taxable.walue,* required 631,329.00... _ ° 631,329.00 :631,S29.00 - :*AII values -entered should be county. taxable values. School: and other taxing authority values may differ. (Section 196.031(7), Reasons for Decision :.: :..: Fill-in fields will expand, or:add pages as.needed. Findings of: Fact See attached. Conclusions of Law" .: . . See attached:... 0✓ :Recommended:Decision:of:_Speclal Magistrate Finding and: conclusions. above are recommendations. .. . . Stephen J. Boyle .... Stephen J Boyle 03/1.2/2025 :-Signature, special magistrate Prin-t:narhe Date Terri Collins -Lister Terni :Collins -Lister: 03/24/2025 . Signature, VAB clerk or special representative Print name Date .q, Lf this is:arecommended decision; the board will consider the recommendeddecision on at Address If the line above is blank, the board: does not yet know the date, time; and place when the recommended: decision will be To find the information, please call 772-226-1432..: or visit our website:at //vab.indian-nver.org/Axia202 to. E.Fi.nal Decision of the Value Adjustment Board Signature, chair, value adjustment board Print name Date of decision.; Signature, VAB: clerk or representative::: `; :P.rnt name.': ;::: Date mailed to:parties :: 2024-167 Page 1:of 4 Finding `of fact: for' petition number 2024-1 List: of Property.Appraiser'.s witnesses'and exhibits::, Christie Noonan; representing theProperty Appraiser's Office, appeared in person: Tlie Property Appraiser's: (PA's) evidence packages coinsisted of 24 pages and.6 .. pages:.:Submitted into Axia included the following:: a cover page; :1.2D-9.020 .. Exchange. of Evidence statute; Methodology and Considerations -by the property . appraiser (PA), information regarding Florida- Statute 193.0.1 ' a sales comparison a chart with 4 coinparable sales:, :partof a property, record card for: another, :unit in the. complex -'showing the increase mi the assessed value; aerials showing- e location of the subject and comparable sales; the MLS -listing iriformatioin and property record card for:the subject andahe property recordfor the:comparable sales. The six pages of evidence- included the _property record card information- for the unit that it's nekt door to the subject property. The above information was - submitted in to Axia and. 'was admitted in to evidence, without objection, rattle hearing a m m The PA' resented a sales _:comparison appTgachmith 4 comp arable sales in a_'Chart.: The: sales . were all within the subject project, Comparable I was. a frees-tanding, unit like the subject. Coinparables:2, 3 and:4 were attaclied:units'lo:cated across the - . street.from the subiect Three ofthe comparable sales took -place: between June and December 2.021.''Compatable:190:14 April 2022.- The.subjeet. sold July. 2023 for - $780,000. Itis also" noted that: deducting a 15% cost of:sale (COS) from the sale price of the subject would indicate a just value of:$667,250. or $409. SK Thisis above the curteAt. assessed .value. The PA. applied. a 29%'time adjustment to4he four comparables. After the time adjustment, the comparables ranged from $441 SF'to $575 SF. Ifis hotedthdt ... comparables: 1 and 4. wereibf -.'similar -s'ize asothe' subje'c'tand sold for $443 SF and: $499 SP or an: av`erage-of $471 SF. Deducting a 15% COS -m*dicqteg:a Just -value of $4.00 SF. The'four. co#ipdrable§,'dftera*time. adjustinent, indicated an average of.:: $4494 SF.:This res"ultg in apir'eliminary.--'valueffiri the subject of $805,220."Deduciing a 15%:C -OS indioated:ajust value: of $684;437. This supports the bill -tent assessed:: value'. .... .... m m SunlIhAiry of evidence ptesefited. by the,petition6r: a a The., petitioner did- not reqye;8t: a Just Value.,: - a .... a The-: petitioner presented portion'of the property c . ard f6' the unit Which: i- next p r s door r- to his , The property card indicated that: the just: value of the unit was $387,322. This':.unit had: been hom­estead6d for several yebxs and :a's-dresult had a Maximum Save Our.Ho . mes Portability of $247,734,. indicating. a marketvalue for'" the -unit of $635,056 "This was similarto the assessed value ,of the subject. Rebuttal Testimony: NOTICE DR -529 R. 12/09 TAX IMPACT OF VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD Rule 12D-16.002 Florida Administrative Code Indian River County Tax Year 2024 Honorable JOSEPH H EARMAN Board of County Commissioners, District No. 3 Honorable JOSEPH E FLESCHER Board of County Commissioners, District No. 2 Honorable JACQUELINE ROSARIO School Board, District No. 2 Citizen Member ANGIE SCHEPERS Business owner within the school district Citizen Member RICK WYKOFF Homestead_ property owner The Value Adjustment Board (V AB) meets each year to hear petitions and make decisions relating to property tax assessments; exemptions classifications, and tax deferrals. All values should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. *Includes transfer of assessment difference (portability) requests. If Y.r�,�.. a question tf ese actions,; contact the Chair or the Clerk of the Value : justrnent Board '` Summar° Ye Actio Phone 772-226-1433 of nsar's T1s. x¢ Number ofParcels"q p '.''4e hY -k"",� g ::s G �� Reductionzin Shift Ih?' T e of ProertExem tions` A�ssessrnents* ��Both CountTaxable Ualue h`, � z y .�-4 , � Taxes ° `h Due toBoard Actions Due to Board Actions `« ,f a �C� ranted 4".Withdrawn Requested Reduced Requested �.. .tee Residential 0 4 7 93 78 $1,720;730 $22,864 Commercial 0 2 0 25 22 $0 $0 Industrial and 0 0 0 12 9 $0 $0 miscellaneous Agricultural or - 0 0 1 2 1 $123,318 $1,736 classified use High-water recharge 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 Historic commercial 0 0 0 0 0" $0 $0 or nonprofit Business machinery 0 0 0 11 11 $0 $0 and equipment Vacant lots and 0 0 1 16 13 $0 $503 acreage TOTALS 0 6 9 159 134 $1,844,048 $25,104 All values should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. *Includes transfer of assessment difference (portability) requests. If Y.r�,�.. a question tf ese actions,; contact the Chair or the Clerk of the Value : justrnent Board Miarabout ....,..: Chair's name JOSEPH H EARMAN, CHAIRMAN Phone 772-226-1433 Clerk's name TERRI COLLINS-LISTER Phone 772-226=1432 -12- CERTIFICATION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR -488 ✓ R. 12/09 0 Section 193.122, Florida Statutes Rule 12D-16.002 51 Florida Administrative Code 0 FLORIDA Tax Roll Year 20 24 The Value Adjustment Board of Indian River County, after approval of the assessment roll below by the Department of Revenue, certifies that all hearings required by section 194.032, F.S., have been held and the Value Adjustment Board is satisfied that the (Check one.), ® Real Property ❑ Tangible Personal Property assessment for our county includes all property and information required by the statutes of the State of Florida and the requirements and regulations of the Department of Revenue. On behalf of the entire board, I certify that we have ordered this certification to be attached as part of the assessment roll. The roll will be delivered to the property appraiser of this county on the date of this certification. The property appraiser will adjust the roll accordingly and make all extensions to show the tax attributable to all taxable property under the law. The following figures* are correct to the best of our knowledge: 1. Taxable value of ® real property ❑ tangible personal property assessment roll as submitted by the property appraiser to the value $ 28,045,1'59,976 adjustment board 2. Net change in taxable value due to actions of the Board $ 1,844,048 3. Taxable value of ® real property ❑ tangible personal property assessment roll incorporating all changes due to action of the value $ 28,043,315,928 adjustment board *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. Signature, Chair of the Value Adjustment Board Continued on page 2 -13- 4/29/2025 Date CERTIFICATION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR -488 R. 12/09 Page 2 of 2 PROCEDURES Tax Roll Year 20 24 The value adjustment board has met the requirements below. Check all that apply. The board: ® 1. Followed the prehearing checklist in Chapter 12D-9, Florida Administrative Code. Took all actions reported by the VAB clerk or the legal counsel to comply with the checklist. ® 2. Verified the qualifications of special magistrates, including if special magistrates completed the Department's training. ® 3. Based the selection of special magistrates solely on proper qualifications and the property appraiser did not influence the selection of special magistrates. ® 4. Considered only petitions filed by the deadline or found to have good cause for filing late. ® 5. Noticed all meetings as required by section 286.011, F.S. ® 6. Did not consider ex parte communications unless all parties were notified and allowed to object to or address the communication. ® 7. Reviewed and considered all petitions as required, unless withdrawn or settled by the petitioner. ® 8. Ensured that all decisions contained the required findings of fact and conclusions of law. ® 9. Allowed the opportunity for public comment at the meetings where the recommended decisions of special magistrates were considered or board decisions were adopted. ® 10. Addressed all complaints of noncompliance with the provisions of Chapter 194, Part I, Florida Statutes, and rule Chapter 12D-9, F.A.C., that were called to the board's attention. All board members and the board's legal counsel have read this certification. The board must submit this certification to the Department of Revenue before it publishes the notice of the findings and results required by section 194.037, F.S. On behalf of the entire value adjustment board, I certify that the above statements are true and that the board has met all the requirements in Chapter 194, F.S., and Department rules. After all hearings have been held, the board shall certify an assessment roll or part of an assessment roll that has been finally approved according to section 193.011, F.S. A sufficient number of copies of this certification shall be delivered to the property appraiser to attach to each copy of the assessment roll prepared by the property appraiser. Signature, Chair of the Value Adjustment Board -14- 4/29/2025 Date CERTIFICATION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR-488 0 R. 12/09 kall. Section 193.122, Florida Statutes Rule 12D-16.002 Florida Administrative Code 0 FLORIDA Tax Roll Year 20 24 The Value Adjustment Board of Indian River County, after approval- of the assessment roll below by the Department of Revenue, certifies that all hearings required by section 194.032, F.S., have been held and the Value Adjustment Board is satisfied that the (Check one.) ❑ Real Property ® Tangible Personal Property assessment for our county includes all property and information required by the statutes of the State of Florida and the requirements and regulations of the Department of Revenue. On behalf of the entire board, I certify that we have ordered this certification to be attached as part of the assessment roll. The roll will be delivered to the property appraiser of this county on the date of this certification. The property appraiser will adjust the roll accordingly and make all extensions to show the tax attributable to all taxable property under the law. The following figures* are correct to the best of our knowledge: 1. Taxable value of Elreal property ® tangible personal property assessment roll as submitted by the property appraiser to the value $ 1,240,308,717 adjustment board 2. Net change in taxable value due to actions of the Board $ 0 3. Taxable value of ❑ real property ® tangible personal property assessment roll incorporating all changes due to action of the value $ 1,240,308,717 adjustment board *All values entered should be county taxable values. School and other taxing authority values may differ. Signature, Chair of the Value Adjustment Board Continued on page 2 -15- 4/29/2025 Date CERTIFICATION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DR -488 R. 12/09 Page 2 of 2 PROCEDURES Tax Roll Year 20 24 The value adjustment board has met the requirements below. Check all that apply. The board: ® 1. Followed the prehearing checklist in Chapter 12D-9, Florida Administrative Code. Took all actions reported by the VAB clerk or the legal counsel to comply with the checklist. ® 2. Verified the qualifications of special magistrates, including if special magistrates completed the Department's training. ® 3. Based the selection of special magistrates solely on proper qualifications and the property appraiser did not influence the selection of special magistrates. ® 4. Considered only petitions filed by the deadline or found to have good cause for filing late. ® 5. Noticed all meetings as required by section 286.011, F.S. ® 6. Did not consider ex parte communications unless all parties were notified and allowed to object to or address the communication. ® 7. Reviewed and considered all petitions as required, unless withdrawn or settled by the petitioner. ® 8. Ensured that all decisions contained the required findings of fact and conclusions of law. ® 9. Allowed the opportunity for public comment at the meetings where the recommended decisions of special magistrates were considered or board decisions were adopted. ® 10. Addressed all complaints of noncompliance with the provisions of Chapter 194, Part I, Florida Statutes, and rule Chapter 12D-9, F.A.C., that were called to the board's attention. All board members and the board's legal counsel have read this certification. The board must submit this certification to the Department of Revenue before it publishes the notice of the findings and results required by section 194.037, F.S. On behalf of the entire value adjustment board, I certify that the above statements are true and that the board has met all the requirements in Chapter 194, F.S., and Department rules. After all hearings have been held, the board shall certify an assessment roll or part of an assessment roll that has been finally approved according to section 193.011, F.S. A sufficient number of copies of this certification shall be delivered to the property appraiser to attach to each copy of the assessment roll prepared by the property appraiser. Signature, Chair of the Value Adjustment Board -16- 4/29/2025 Date